to give an account of those Men who were at one certain particular time the great Officers under Solomon but to give an account likewise of those who at any time had been so This Explication may well pass for probable but the true one I take to be that of Serarius Menochius and Grotius who tell us That therefore he is join'd with Zadok in the Text above cited because tho' turn'd out of the Office yet he still enjoy'd the Name and Title of High-priest and was still highly honour'd as a Man of great Age and Dignity Thus 't is certain from Iosephus That in After-times when so many High-priests were deposed all they that were deposed enjoy'd still the Title as well as if they had been the Possessors And so it is now with the Patriarchs of Constantinople A fifth Evasion is that of Io. de Pineda and the Card. Bellarmin whom the Jesuits generally follow as Gretser Serarius A Lapide Becanus c. They own that Abiathar was completely deprived by King Solomon but say they he did not do it as King but by a particular Commission from God as a Prophet And this they prove from that Saying of the Scripture And Solomon thrust out Abiathar from being Priest unto the Lord that the word of the Lord might be fulfilled which he spake concerning the House of Eli in Shiloh In answer to this I observe first That till after this was done King Solomon had no Gift of Prophecy It appears from the Scripture that he was first inspir'd and made a Prophet when God appear'd to him in a Vision at Gibeon which was after the Deprivation of Abiathar 2dly If Solomon had deprived Abiathar to this end that he might fulfill that Prophecy God to Eli yet it would not thence follow That he did it as a Prophet He had heard of that Prophecy and so he might adventure of himself to fulfill it It appears from Abulensis that tho' in his time and before there were some of that Opinion That Solomon depriv'd Abiathar that he might fulfill the aforesaid Prophecy yet they never imagin'd that he did it as a Prophet by a special Commission from God they thought he did it of himself by his own bare Autority 3dly It does not appear by the Text that Solomon design'd by deposing Abiathar to fulfill that Prophecy of God For those words That the Word of the Lord might be fulfilled do onely shew that That was the design of Providence a common mode of Expression In the Hebrew it is ad implendum sermonem where ad says Grotius is onely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 neque enim hoc respiciebat Salomon So long before Grotius the great and judicious Abulensis a Bishop of their own Church It is said in the Gospel of S. Matthew that Ioseph came and dwelt in a City called Nazareth that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Prophets He shall be called a Nazarene That the Jews crucified Christ parting his Garments casting Lots that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Prophet They parted my Garments among them c. So S. Iohn The Souldiers said therefore among themselves Let us not rent but cast lots for it whose it shall be that the Scripture might be fulfilled which saith c. It is said in another place of S. Iohn that notwithstanding all the Miracles of Christ yet the Iews believed not on him that the Saying of Esaias the Prophet might be fulfilled which he spake Lord who hath believed our Report c. That when Pilate commanded the Iews to take Jesus and Judge him according to their Law they said unto him It is lawfull for us to put any man to death That the Saying of Jesus might be fulfilled which he spake signifying what death he should die Who so very injudicious as to inferr from these places that such was the End and Design of the Persons themselves Yet as well may we inferr that such was here the Design of the Persons themselves as that such was the Design of King Solomon deposing Abiathar I shall onely add That whereas some of the Iesuits do pretend to confirm their Opinion with the Autority of Theodoret and Procopius Gazaeus those Authors are so far from thinking that King Solomon depriv'd Abiathar as a Prophet that it does not appear that they thought he had any respect to that Prophecy They onely say That in depriving Abiathar he was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Instrument or an Asier made use of by God for the fulfilling of his Prophecy The Jesuit Becanus not very well satisfied as it seems with this Answer of Bellarmin has besides another of his own He tells us That if King Solomon deposed Abiathar by his Regal Autority onely and was not inspired by God then he acted unlawfully for as he was King says he he was not a lawfull and a competent Judge Here now is a Man that speaks out This is home to our Purpose Let our Adversaries now take what Part they please If they grant that King Solomon did well then the Civil Power is a Competent Judge of a Bishop and may lawfully deprive him if he refuses to own its autority or for any other Criminal Cause for which he may by Bishops be justly deprived If with the Jesuit Becanus they say he did ill then 't is plain from the Scripture it self that the whole Nation of the Iews and God himself accepted of a High-priest who was put into the place of another invalidly deprived by the Civil Autority as a true High-priest § 4. For a great many Generations the High-priesthood continued in the Family of Zadok without the Deprivation of any We read of no one deposed by either the Regal or any other Authority till the time of Onias III. Sirnamed the Pious Of him we read in the Breviary of Iason of Cyrene viz. the 11. of Maccabees that he was deposed by King Antiochus Epiphanes by the means of a Bribe which his Brother Iesus call'd otherwise Iason had offer'd for the Honour who was thereupon placed in his room Iosephus in the 12th Book of his Antiquities says Antiochus conferr'd the High-priesthood on Iason after the death of Onias And again in his 15th Book he says that Iason himself was the first of all the High-priests he means after Solomon's time that whilst alive were depriv'd of their Dignity But in this Iosephus was mistaken as appears not onely by the express Testimony of Iason of Cyrene but likewise by that very particular account which he gives of Onias's Death several years after the Promotion and even after the Deprivation of Iason in the time of the High-priest Menelaus And Iosephus himself in another place viz. in his Book 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 has affirm'd the same thing that Onias was deposed by the King and Iason for Money promoted to the High-priesthood The contrary Custom
Service Should a Person unacquainted with the Histories and Writers of those Times read what the Vindicator has here so positively asserted he could not but conclude that the three first Ages were full of Examples against us But they that are not utterly Strangers to the Practice and the Histories of those Ages know very well that all that the Vindicator lays down is unworthy of so learned a Man either utterly untrue or not in the least to his Purpose That the Christians of those Ages did not own any Power in the Secular Magistrate to deprive Bishops of their purely Spiritual Power is what we never denied That they ever disown'd the Power of the Secular Magistrate to deprive a Bishop of his particular District if he should refuse to acknowledge the Autority of that Magistrate or if upon any other Civil account he deserv'd to be depriv'd our Adversaries cannot demonstrate But it is not now our Business to inquire concerning that We are onely at present to inquire Whether ever they refus'd to submit to the present Possessor because his Predecessor was unjustly depos'd by the Secular Power That they were wont to adhere to their Bishops tho' set up and maintain'd against the Consent of the Civil Magistrate we acknowlege But what is that to our Adversaries Purpose If they still adher'd to their Bishops when the persecuting Emperors endeavour'd to root out Christianity by driving away the Bishops what is that to the Case now before us Should our Magistrates like the Persecutors of those Ages endeavour to destroy Christianity by depriving us of our Bishops and by suffering none to be substituted in their places then those Bishops would be our onely Bishops and as such we should still adhere to ' em If in those Ages the Emperours had onely deposed such Bishops as would not own their Autority or as otherwise deserved to be depriv'd and had suffer'd other Persons as worthy to be put into their Places who can doubt but that the Christians of those Ages would have done as we now do as was done in the very next Age and as the Iews had all along done I shall answer all that the Vindicator has said or ever will be able to say concerning the Practice of those Ages with this Challenge That he shew me any one single Instance of a Bishop disown'd by the Church in those three first Centuries for being put into the place of another depos'd by the Civil Autority If he cannot do that I shall onely desire him to produce the Autority of any one single Writer of those Ages that directly makes to this purpose That a Bishop so constituted ought not upon that account to be own'd Till that be done whatsoever he is pleas'd to allege I shall onely say this of him Magna dicit sed nihil probat § 2. The first Instance of an Orthodox Bishop put into the place of another Orthodox Bishop depos'd by the Civil Autority is that of Felix II. Bishop of Rome who in the Year CCCLV. was put Into the place of Liberius depos'd by the Emperour Constantius That Liberius was depos'd and banish'd by the bare Autority of the Emperour without any pretence to a Synod and that too very unjustly for no other Reason but because he was Orthodox and refus'd to comply with him in subscribing to the Condemnation of S. Athanasius Archbishop of Alexandria is manifest beyond all doubt from the Testimonies of all Historians Socrates Sozomen Theodores S. Athanasius himself Ammianus Marcellinus and others Felix who was put into his place tho' he was rejected by the much greater number of the Laity of Rome because he was Ordain'd by the Arians and because he was thought to favour that Party yet by all such as were satisfied that he was really Orthodox was own'd and receiv'd without any Regard had to the Lay and unjust Deprivation of Liberius Theodoret tells us that when he was at Church there were none of the People of Rome would go into it But what does he say was the reason It was not because Liberius had been deposed onely by the Civil Autority but because he communicated with the Arians After the great Liberius says he there was Ordain'd one of his Deacons nam'd Felix who indeed had continu'd firm in the Faith of the Nicene Fathers yet with those that endeavour'd to subvert it he freely Communicated And on that account there were none of the Inhabitants of Rome would go into the Church when he was there Should we grant what Theodoret says that none of the Inhabitants of Rome would communicate with him Yet this at least we have gain'd by his Testimony that they would not have refus'd if he had not communicated with Hereticks That the reason of the Peoples refusing to submit to Pope Felix was because they thought him a Heretick is expressly asserted by Freculphus Bishop of Lisieux who flourish'd in the Year 840. Liberius says he knew that the Clergy and the People of the City declin'd the Communion of his Successor Felix as being a Heretick If Freculphus did not write this from some antienter Historian as indeed he could not read so concerning the Clergy for that is very false as will by and by appear then by that Conjecture it appears that he did not think there was any other good Reason for which they might separate from him It appears likewise by the Testimony even of S. Athanasius that the reason of the People's Aversion to Felix was Because he was put in by the Hereticks and was himself thought one But the People says he well knowing the wickedness of the Hereticks did not suffer 'em Felix and his Ordainers to enter into their Churches but separated from their Communion That S. Athanasius thought Felix a Heretick is a thing not at all to be wonder'd at For he knew nothing of him and had never heard of him but as put by the Arians into Liberius's place And therefore it was natural for him to think him as the People of Rome did one of that Party But tho' the Generality of the People were so far possess'd with Prejudice against him through the great and extraordinary Affection which they had for Liberius as not to be capable of being convinc'd but that he must needs be an Arian Yet the Clergy of the City of Rome knew him to be throughly Orthodox and accordingly receiv'd him for their Bishop Let us hear what the Presbyters Marcellinus and Faustinus say of it The same day say they that Liberius went away into banishment all the Clergy that is the Presbyters and the Archdeacon Felix and Damasus Liberius ' s Deacon and all that bare Office in the Church with one accord in the presence of the People oblig'd themselves by an Oath not to accept of any other Bishop as long as Liberius was living But the Clergy notwithstanding their Oath accepted of Felix the Archdeacon when
that Catalogue of the Bishops of that See which is added at the end of the last Book Briccius is call'd the Fourth and Eustochius who succeeded upon his Death is call'd the Fifth Bishop from the first Institution of the See yet throughout the whole History Iustinian and Armentius are reckoned in the number For Perpetuus who succeeded Eustochius is call'd the Fifth Bishop after S. Martin Virus who was the 2d from Eustochius is call'd the 7th Bishop after S. Martin To him succeeded Licinius and him he calls the 8th Bishop after S. Martin Now unless Iustinian and Armentius are included in the Number Perpetuus will be only the 3d. Bishop after S. Martin Virus only the 5th and Licinius only the 6th Thirdly I observe that S. Briccius though he was so unjustly deposed by barely the Violence of the People and though he never had given up his right but had all along endeavour'd to recover it yet he himself own'd Armentius to be a true Bishop of Tours and calls him his Brother The Historian tells us that when he was sent back to Tours by the Pope to be restor'd as he lay at some distance from the City Armentius died and the death of Armentius being reveal'd to him by a Vision he thus cried out to his Company Arise quickly that we may go to the Funeral of our Brother the Bishop of Tours § 3. In the year 452. Iuvenalis being Patriarch of Ierusalem Theodosius a certain turbulent Monk and an Adversary of the Council of Chalcedon had by the slaughter of a great many Persons got himself to be ordained Patriarch of that See though Iuvenalis was still alive and had never been deposed by any Synod nor yet by the Emperour himself yet the only Objection that the Venerable the Great and Orthodox Abbot S. Euthymius made against him when urged to acknowlege him as Patriarch and to communicate with him was this That he had been guilty of many Murders and was likewise a Heretick God forbid says he I should approve of his Murders and ill Opinions Concerning Iuvenalis that he had not been Synodically deprived and that therefore it was not lawful to acknowledge a Successor not a word Theodosius had ordained many Bishops in the room of those Orthodox Bishops who were not yet returned from the Council and all places that were vacant he filled up After some little time he was deposed by the Emperour and Iuvenalis being restored was commanded by the Emperour to depose all those Bishops whom he had ordained But though he had usurpt the See after so barbarous a manner and though they that had been ordained by him were as uncanonically ordained as possibly they could be yet they who were Orthodox were still accounted true Bishops and if their Predecessors were dead were still continued in their Sees This appears from the Example of Theodotus Bishop of Ioppa who though he was ordained by him yet continued long after that time Bishop of that See and was owned as such by the Orthodox § 4. Timotheus Aelurus a notorious Eutychian Heretick who as such had been formerly condemn'd by a Synod of all the Bishops of Aegypt was in the year 457. the 1st of the Emperour Leo made Bishop of Alexandria by the People of that City Proterius the Orthodox Bishop being then living and in full possession of the See and ordained by only two Bishops and those besides Hereticks and as such judicially condemned Being made Bishop after this irregular manner his Predecessor Proterius was in a little time after murder'd as 't was thought by his procurement After some time he was deposed and banish'd by the Authority of the Emperour and the Judgment of the Bishops of the Catholick Church and an Orthodox Person Timotheus Salofaciolus was constituted his Successor After 18 years Salofaciolus was deposed by the sole Authority of the Heretical Usurper Basiliscus and Aelurus being recall'd from Banishment was again made Bishop of Alexandria Whilst he was at Constantinople with the Emperor Basiliscus Acatius the stout and Orthodox Patriarch of that City would not suffer him to enter into any of his Churches And why not Not because he was substituted in the room of one unjustly deposed by the bare Authority of Basiliscus but because he was a Heretick and a Murderer So Pope Simplicius in one of his Epistles to Acacius Thy constancy says he is praise worthy both in the sight of God and in ours in that thou wouldst not suffer that condemn'd Person to enter into any of the Churches of Constantinople not only because he was a Heretick but likewise because he was a Parricide § 5. In the year 482. Iohannes Talaias or Tabennesiotes an Orthodox Patriarch of Alexandria was deposed by the Emperour Zeno and Petrus Mongus one who had been formerly deposed from that See for being an Eutychian but had now subscribed to the Orthodox Faith and had been absolv'd by Acacius the Patriarch of Constantinople was made Bishop in his stead The reason why Talaias was deposed was this There having been great Seditions rais'd at Alexandria in the elections of the Patriarchs the Emperour had been forc'd to deprive that Church and People of their ancient Right of Election and to take upon him to constitute their Patriarch himself The Patriarch Timotheus Salofaciolus being again restored to that See sends Talaias his Oeconomus or the Treasurer of the Church to Constantinople to the Emperour to thank him for his restoring him and withal to beg of him that after his Salofaciolus's Death the Church of Alexandria might have a free Election This the Emperour grants but suspecting that Talaias might have took upon him to negotiate this Affair that so he himself might obtain the dignity he made him take an Oath that he himself would never endeavour to obtain it Talaias returning home with the Emperour's Grant was after the Death of Salofaciolus chosen Patriarch by the Orthodox party and the Emperour disliking the Election deposed him as guilty of Perjury That Talaias was really guilty he himself would never acknowlege alleging that it was only because he was Orthodox that he was deposed But guilty or not guilty deposed he was and that too by barely the Emperour's Authority as appears from Evagrius Liberatus Diaconus and the Epistles of Pope Gelasius that he had been canonically chosen and ordain'd and to all intents and purposes fully confirm'd by the Catholick Bishops of the district of Alexandria is apparent from an Epistle of Pope Simplicius to Acacius as likewise from Liberatus Diaconus who tell us besides That he had sent about his Synodical Epistles and that after he was ejected he never surrendred up his Right but still laid claim to the See of Alexandria is what I need not endeavour to prove His fleeing to Rome to the Pope that so he might be restored by his means is notorious
Cyrillus Scythopolitanus who tells us That near three years after he was banish'd a little before he fell sick and died S. Sabas and Euthalius the Governor of those Monasteries which he had built at Iericho when he was Archbishop and another Abbot went to Aila where he lay confin'd in banishment to give him a visit Though S. Sabas and the rest had immediately acknowleged his Successor as soon as he was deposed though they still adher'd to that Successor as the true Archbishop of Ierusalem and though Euthalius had been in a particular manner obliged to Elias by being constituted by him the Governor of his own Monasteries yet the good old man takes no notice at all of it but as Cyrillus says receiv'd them with joy kept them several days with him and communicated daily with them CHAP. VIII S. Silverius Bishop of Rome being violently deposed by Belisarius the Emperor Justinian's General his Successor Vigilius though put into his place so depriv'd though constituted by the bare Autority of Belisarius against the consent of the Clergy and though Silverius never gave up his Right is own'd and receiv'd by the 5th General Council and by all the Church as a true Pope He was generally own'd whilst Silverius himself was living Baronius's conjecture concerning his being again ordain'd after Silverius's Death confuted though for some time he communicated with Hereticks yet it was not known to the Orthodox who communicated with him IN the year 538 Silverius Pope of Rome was deposed by Belisarius the Emperor Iustinian's General then in Italy being accused of a design to betray the City of Rome to the Goths and Vigilius was made Pope in his stead There being a suspicion says Procopius Caesariensis that Silverius the Bishop of the City intended to deliver up the City to the Goths Belisarius sent him away immediately into Greece and a little after made another Bishop in his stead by name Vigilius To the same purpose the Continuator of Marcellinus Comes ' s Chronicle and Paulus Diaconus least any one should suspect that though he is said to be deposed by Belisarius yet it was not barely by his Autority but by a Synod of Bishops I shall here present the Reader with that particular Account of the whole Proceeding which we find in Liberatus Diaconus who flourish'd at that time He tells us That Pope Agapetus being dead and Silverius being chosen by the City of Rome in his stead the Empress perswaded Vigilius Agapetus's Deacon who was at that time at Constantinople to enter into a secret Engagement That if he should be made Pope he would condemn the Council of Chalcedon and communicate with the Hereticks Theodosius Anthimus and Severus and confirm their belief by an Epistle He having engaged himself to do so she writes a Letter by him to Belisarius requiring him to depose Silverius and to make Vigilius Bishop in his room Belisarius to fulfill the Empress's Will and for the lucre of a summ of Money which Vigilius had offer'd him gets Silverius to be accused as having written to the Goths and engaged to deliver up the City into their hands And 't is reported saies Liberatus that one Marcus and one Iulianus forged Letters in his name to that purpose Now Belisarius and his Wife had privately perswaded Silverius to do the same thing which the Empress had engaged Vigilius to do but he refused and betakes himself to a Church Belisarius sends a messenger to him to invite him again to the Palace he accordingly goes relying upon an Oath which was made him that he should have leave to return He returns again to the Church and again is commanded by Belisarius to come to the Palace but he would not go out of the Church well knowing that some evil was design'd him At last he yielded to go and commending himself and his cause to God by Prayer he went thither He enter'd in alone and was afterwards never seen by those that attended him Another day Belisarius call'd together the Presbyters and the Deacons and all the rest of the Clergy and commanded them to choose another Pope Which when they scrupled to do and some laugh'd at the command Vigilius was by his order ordain'd Pope Now Silverius being banish'd to Patara a City of Lycia the Bishop of that City addressed himself to the Emperor and reason'd with him concerning the Expulsion of Silverius telling him that there were many Kings in the World but but one Pope the Head of the Church of the whole World This the Popes at that time had pretended to be and their Flatterers humour'd them in it By this the Emperor was induced to recall Silverius and gave order that those Letters which were produced against him should be enquired into That if it could be proved that he wrote them he should be banish'd to any City they should think fit but if they appear'd to be false he should be restored to his See This news being carried to the Empress she endeavoured to prevent Silverius's return to Rome but she could not prevail and Silverius was brought back to Italy by the Emperor's command Now Vigilius being terrified at his coming least he should lose his See required Belisarius to deliver him up into his hands telling him that if he did not do so he should not be able to pay him that fumm of Money which he had promis'd him Sâ— Belisarius gave him up into the hands of Vigilius's Servants who carried him into the Isle Palmaria where in their custody he died of want This is the account which Liberatus has given us and the same account as to the main we have in the Pontifical It appears from hence That Silverius was not onely deposed without any Synod but likewise by an inferior Person not by the order of the Sovereign Power that besides that he was deposed very unjustly and tyrannically without any formal Tryal and lastly that Vigilius was made Pope without any Election expresly against the consent of the Clergy of Rome by the bare Arbitrary Power of Belisarius Though such were the Circumstances of Silverius's deprivation though after his deprivation he never gave up his right and though Vigilius was besides that so uncanonically constituted yet because he appear'd to be Orthodox he was own'd and acknowleged by all by the People of Rome even though they very much hated him for his Cruelty to his Predecessor and for other ill Actions and by all the Catholick Church particularly by the 5 th General Council He govern'd as long as he liv'd near 18 years and to this day is reckon'd by all as one of the true Popes of Rome I need not produce the Autorities of any of the Antients to prove that he was generally acknowleged it being a truth so notorious But there are four things which I must not omit taking notice of 1. That there is extant in Isidorus Mercator an Epistle of Silverius supposed to be then in banishment
to apply it The other Instance is that of the Bishops of our own Country in the Reign of William II. There arising a great Difference between the King and Anselm Archbishop of Canterbury about acknowledging the Pope Whether the Archbishop could lawfully do it without the King's Consent The Matter was referr'd to the Parliament and the Bishops being by the King requir'd to deprive the Archbishop they answer'd saith Eadmerus That that they could not do because he was their Metropolitan 'T is hard to conjecture what our Author intended by proposing this Example as worthy Consideration unless it be that an Archbishop of Canterbury should be now above all Deprivation He contends in his Treatise that a Bishop ought not to be Deprived but by Bishops and hereby producing this Example if he means any thing at all he intimates That an Archbishop cannot be Deprived by the Bishops his Suffragans because of their Oath of Obedience But whatever was our Author's meaning certain it is that it was not because of the Oath of Obedience that the Bishops refus'd to Deprive Anselm as the King would have had 'em but because they had at that time an Opinion amongst 'em that a Primate or Metropolitan could be judg'd and depriv'd by no one but the Pope So far were they from thinking themselves oblig'd by their Oath not to Deprive him that it 's very notorius that tho' he was not Depriv'd yet they threw off all Obedience and renounced their Subjection to him § 9. We are next to consider that Objection which is made by the learned Vindicator That a Bishop put into the place of another deposed by the Lay-power is in reality no Bishop If this is true then it must be granted that we cannot be oblig'd for the sake of Union and Peace to adhere to the present Possessor This indeed is the Difference between our Civil and our Ecclesiastical Governors The former are purely Governors and nothing more is required in them but to be capable of Governing The latter are not onely Governors but are likewise the Administrators of Sacraments and the sole Ordainers of the Clergy It is therefore necessary not onely that the Ecclesiastical Governor should be duly qualified for Government but that he should be likewise endued by God Almighty with the Power of Ordaining and of administring the holy Sacraments Thus much must be granted Let us now see what Argument the Vindicator can produce to degrade our present Possessors and to prove 'em no Bishops It is nothing but a Saying of S. Cyprian that is nothing at all to his Purpose The Saying is this That a second Bishop is no Bishop 'T is strange methinks that so great and so worthy a Man should pretend to raise so great and so extraordinary a Structure upon so weak a Foundation The Occasion of the Saying was this Novatian a private Presbyter had rais'd a Schism against Cornelius the lawfull Bishop of Rome he had got himself to be ordain'd Bishop tho' Cornelius had never been depos'd was still the Possessor and acknowledg'd the true and the onely Bishop of Rome by all the Churches of the World both the Western the Eastern and the African and Novatian was by all condemn'd as a rank and notorious Schismatick S. Cyprian who was always very zealous for the Unity of the Church thus expresses himself in his Epistle to Antonianus concerning him Cornelius says he being possess'd of the See according to the Will of God and confirm'd in it by the Consent of us all whoever would now be a Bishop of that See must needs be out of the Church neither can he have any Ecclesiastical Orders who does not continue in Vnity with the Church Whosoever he is whatsoever he may boast of himself or pretend to he is a prophane Person an Alien and not of the Church And since there cannot be a second Bishop where another is already in possession whosoever is made Bishop after another who ought to be alone he is not a second but none This is the place out of which the learned Vindicator is pleas'd to draw his Argument with how Logical an Inference the judicious Reader may see 'T is strange that That excellent Person should be so much blinded with Prejudice as not to be able to discover how vast a difference there is between the Case of our Present Bishops and that of which S. Cyprian discourses Had Cornelius been deposed by the Emperor for refusing to acknowledge his Autority we have all the reason in the world to believe That his Deprivation would have been lookt upon by S. Cyrrian as very reasonable and just But let us still grant as we first supposed in our Question That he ought not to have been deprived by the Emperor himself but by Bishops Yet if he had been deprived for refusing to acknowledge the Emperor's Autority or if he had been upon any other account so deprived by the Imperial Autority as that it would have been impossible for him to exercise his Episcopal jurisdiction Is it possible for any wise and unprejudiced Man to imagine That S. Cyprian would have thought so ill of Novatian and his Adherents as he did If an Enemy of the Roman Empire suppose the King of Persia should in S. Cyprian's time have taken a Frontier City and the Bishop of that City should have been deposed by him for refusing to submit to his Autority Who can believe that That great and wise Man S. Cyprian would have declared a new Bishop no Bishop and all his Adherents Schismatical That a second that is a Schismatical Bishop an Invader of a See already fill'd and possess'd is no Bishop is confess'd to be S. Cyprian's Doctrine But that our Bishops are in the Sence of S. Cyprian the Invaders of a See already fill'd and possess'd that they are secundi in his Sence is what we utterly deny Not a Word not a Hint in S. Cyprian from whence such a thing can be inferr'd The Vindicator may be pleas'd to consider that our present Possessors did not set up themselves in opposition to such as were possess'd of their Sees but before they pretended to be Bishops their Predecessors were made by the Supreme Civil Power uncapable of Governing i. e. were Depos'd Again he ought to consider that our present Possessors were so far from ambitiously invading like Novatian the Sees of others that they were all chose by their respective Churches according to the usual manner viz. in the same manner that their Predecessors themselves had been Let us hold up the Picture which the Vindicator has been pleas'd to draw to a true Light and then we shall the better see what a strange Figure it is The Vindicator's Enthymeme is this S. Cyprian says that he is no Bishop but a Schismatick who ambitiously invades a See which another is fully possess'd of Therefore S. Cyprian thought that he is no Bishop but a Schismatick who is chosen by the
continu'd still Bishop of Poictiers what is that to the Cause now before us since there was not any Orthodox Person made Bishop in his stead So far was he from having an Orthodox Person for his Successor that while he was in Banishment he had not any Successor at all He was never deposed but barely banish'd and accordingly after four years time he was again restor'd CHAP. V. The Catholicks of Alexandria reject Lucius because he was an Arian not because his Predecessor Peter was unjustly deposed by the Emperor Our Adversaries Doctrine not known to the said Peter § 1. S. Briccius of Tours deposed by the People Yet Justinian and Armentius his Successors are own'd as true Bishops of Tours Armentius is own'd as true Bishop by S. Briccius himself though he had never given up his Right but had always claimed it § 2. S. Euthymius refuses to communicate with Theodosius Patriarch of Jerusalem because he was a Heretick and had embrued his Hands in the Bloud of many Persons not because the Patriarch Juvenalis whose See he had usurpt was still living Theodosius's Ordinations are allow'd of as valid § 3. Acacius Patriarch of Constantinople refuses to communicate with Timotheus Aelurns not because he was put into the place of Timotheus Salofaciolus unjustly deposed by the Heretical Vsurper Basiliscus but because he was a Heretick and a Parricide § 4. Jo. Talaias the Orthodox Patriarch of Alexand. being deposed by the bar◠Authority of the Emperour Zeno though he still laid claim to the See yet Petrus Mongus his Successor is acknowleged by all that accounted him Orthodox by Acacius and Fravitas Patriarchs of Constantinop by Martyrius Patriarch of Jerusalem by almost all the Bishops of the Eastern Church That they who refused to communicate with Mongus viz. the Western Bishops the Bishops of Dardania c. did it only because they thought him a Heretick That Euphemius Patriarch of Constantinople communicated with him till he found him to be a Heretick then for sook his Communion Pope Simplicius when he heard that Talaias was to be deposed was well enough satisfied till he understood that Mongus whom he accounted a Heretick was design'd for his Successor Whether Orthodox Bishops unjustly ejected by the Emperour be restor'd or new Orthodox Bishops be created he values not he only desires that they that are made Bishops should be Orthodox Pope Felix III. not at all concern'd for Talaias's being deprived without a Synod only dislikes that one whom he accounted a Heretick was constituted in his place § 5. Calendion Patriarch of Antioch being deposed by the Emperour Zeno without any Synod the Orthodox Bishops viz. Pope Felix III. Quintianus Asculanus Justinus Siculus Acacius Constantinopolitanus Antheon Arsinoites Faustus Apolloniates Pamphilus Abydensis Asclepiades of Trallium c. refuse to communicate with his Successor Petrus Gnapheus only because he was a Heretick take no notice of his being constituted in the room of one Unsynodically deposed and are ready to communicate with him as a true Patriarch of Antioch if he will but forsake his Heresy IN the year CCCLXXI Peter tho Successor of S. Athanasius in the See of Alexandria because he was Orthodox was violently deposed by Palladius the prefect of Aegypt and the High-Treasurer Magnus by the order of Valens the Arian Emperour and Lucius an Arian was made Bishop in his place That there was not any Synod concerned in his deprivation is plain beyond all controversy from what is related by Theodoret Socrates Sozomen and by Peter himself in that Epistle which he wrote to the Catholick Church concerning his Deprivation Though Peter was in this manner deposed yet the Catholicks of the Church of Alexandria did not upon that account keep off from Lucius's Communion but only upon the account of his being a Heretick This I gather from those words of Theodoret But the People having been nourished with the Doctrine of Athanasius when they saw that quite contrary Food was offer'd them kept off from the Churches Not a word any where that the unjust deprivation of Peter was one of the Causes of their Separation And Peter himself in the aforesaid Epistle though with a great deal of Rhetorick he endeavours to set forth the Crimes of Lucius and to excite all the Church to whom he writes to the greatest abhorrence of his Actions yet he does not raise this Objection against him that he was thrust into the Throne whilst he himself was yet living He only complains 1st That he was a Heretick and 2d That he was made Bishop without any Regular and Customary Proceedings That he had bought the Bishoprick like a secular Office with Money was created Bishop neither by a Synod of Orthodox Bishops nor by the Votes of the lawful Clergy nor by the Postulation of the People as the Laws of the Church required There were with him no Bishops no Presbyters or Deacons no multitudes of People no Monks going before him singing Hymns He thought as it seems that there was no thing more requir'd for the making his Successor true Bishop of that See but Orthodoxy and a Regular Election § 2. In the year CCCCXXXV S. Briccius Archbishop of Tours the Successor of S. Martin was deposed after he had been Bishop above 32 years by the Inhabitants of that City They suspected him to be guilty of Incontinence and although it was only a suspicion yet out he must go In his Room they plac'd one Iustinian who shortly after dyed then they made one Armentius their Bishop who continu'd in that See till he died for near the space of seven years In the mean time Briccius remained at Rome there making his complaint to the Pope and endeavouring to be restor'd So far was he from consenting to the consecration of Armentius I here observe that the Historian Gregory who was one of the Arch-bishops of that See and flourish'd in the year 573. when he treats of this Affair makes no manner of mention of any disturbance in the Church occasion'd by this injustice not a word to the contrary but that Armentius was readily acknowleged by all of that district and by all the Bishops of France Had there been any disturbance he could not but have known it and if he had known it he would not have fail'd to have mentioned it for he himself very highly resents the injustice which the holy Briccius suffer'd He tells us that Iustinian's dying so soon was a Iudgment of God upon him He thinks it so because as he himself relates God had wrought certain Miracles by the hand of Briccius to convince the People of his Innocence yet they would not be convinc'd and notwithstanding those great Miracles turn'd him out and made Iustinian their Bishop I observe in the 2d place that the Historian who himself as I said was Bishop of that See and moreover a Saint reckons Iustinian and Armentius in the Catalogue of his predecessors the Arch-bishops of Tours For though in
this Error Thou art fallen do not lie as thou art Thou hast Sin'd do not continue to do so The Holy Church of God expects thee she desires to embrace thee a Penitent and a Convert to her Faith She cries out to thee by us Come to me all you that Labour c. God wills not most Honour'd Brother the Death of a Sinner but that he should be Converted and Live These Things I together with a Synod have written to thee Conjuring thee by God and the Holy Angels that thou Preach these Things and agree with us in the True Faith That so our Faith may remain Vnadulterated to the Glory of God The same is to be said of all those Bishops whose Epistles to Gnapheus are extant in the 4th Tome of the Councils not one takes notice of his being Invalidly Constituted in the room of Calendion Heresie is the only Thing they object that the only Thing they exhort him to forsake 2. Quintianus Asculanus Thou proceedest says he in thy Heretical Doctrines not withstanding the Admonitions of many Bishops and particularly Pope Felix who have exhorted thee to forsake 'em and to preach the Orthodox Faith Who can bear with thee whilst thou thus pervertest the Gospel of Christ Let thy Liturgy be as that of the Orthodox is without the addition of that Clause who wast Crucified for us and that punishment which is intended for thee shall be slopt If thou dost not do so there will be sent thee from Pope Felix a Deprivation 3. Iustinus Siculus Cease says he from this Wickedness and then thou wilt not be the cause of the Ruin of those that are more ignorant least our Pope Felix should according to the Canons pass Sentence upon thee Receive my Admonition as the Admonition of a Brother Extinguish the Pride of Hereticks and become a Pastor to thy Sheep not a Wolf c. 4. Acacius Patriarch of Constantinople Walk says he and lead thy Flock in the high way in which the Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon walk'd that thou may'st be a true High-Priest of God 5. To the same purpose Antheon Bishop of Arsinoe and Faustus of Apollonius I have heard beloved says the latter from many Bishops That thou turn'st away from the Orthodox Faith and in all place they talk of it I therefore thought it necessary to enquire of thee thy self whether it be really so c. 6. Pamphilus Bishop of Abydus This Reprehension I send thee that returning to the true Faith thou may'st enjoy the Dignity of thy Throne But if thou dost not return to the Orthodox Faith I will Excommunicate thee 7. Ascelepiades Bishop of Trallium The whole World is offended at thy addition to the Trishagium and the Pastors of the Church are deservedly excited to pronounce an Anathema against thee Give us I beseech thee some little Signification of thy being Orthodox c. The only Person that takes any notice of his being irregularly Constituted is Flaccianus Rhodopensis and of him 't is uncertain whether when he says That Gnapheus was irregularly Constituted he had any respect to the Deprivation of Calendion For Gnapheus had been formerly deposed from the See of Antioch as a Heretick and therefore since he had never been absolv'd by the Church he might well be said even upon that account to have been irregularly promoted And to this Flaccianus seems to allude Whatever was his meaning he only barely mentions it does not offer it as a Reason why the Orthodox did not or ought not to Communicate with him He insists like the rest upon only his being a Heretick I am not ignorant that these Epistles of Pope Felix Quintianus Iustinus Acacius Antheon Faustus Pamphilus and Asclepiades to Petrus Gnapheus are lookt upon by some Learned Men not to be Genuine But I likewise know that that Opinion is by others opposed However it be This at least is apparent that he or they who wrote 'em and 't is certain that they are very ancient did not doubt of the lawfulness of Communicating with a Bishop who was put into the place of another unjustly Deposed by the Lay-Power provided he were not a Heretick or if he were would leave his Heresie and come over to the Orthodox Faith And here I must observe that the Epistle last quoted viz. That of Flaccianus is Condemn'd as Spurious by even those who will not yield that the rest should be thought so CHAP. VI. Macedonius Patriarch of Constantinople being violently Deposed by the Heretical Emperor Anastasius his Successor Timotheus is acknowleged by all that accounted him Orthodox though at the same time they profess'd that the Deprivation of Macedonius was unjust and could never be induced by any Terrours to subscribe to it viz by Flavianus Patriarch of Antioch Elias Patriarch of Jerusalem the Abbot of the Monastery of Studium the Orthodox People of Constantinople by the great Abbots of Palaestine S. Sabas and S. Theodosius and by all Palaestine in general at that time exceedingly flourishing for its zealous Profession of the Orthodox Faith The Calumnies of the Vindicator concerning the Apostacy of the Patriarchs Flavianus and Elias confuted Timotheus not known to them to be a Heretick when they Communicated with him They are Honoured by the Church as Saints IN the year 511 Macedontus the Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople was Deposed by the bare Authority of the Heretical Emperor Anastasius and that because he was Orthodox and refused to Condemn the Council of Chalcedon Though Macedonius was so unjustly Deposed yet Timotheus whom the Emperor had constituted in his place was receiv'd and acknowleged as true Bishop of Constantinople by all those that accounted him Orthodox This is one of the Examples produced by the Author of the Baroccian Treatise Evagrius says That the Patriarch Macedonius went away privately from the City of Constantinople by the perswasions of Celer the Captain of the Emperors Guards By which he means that the Captain of the Guards being commanded by the Emperor to carry him away into Banishment persuaded him to go away with him peaceably and privately for the avoiding of a Tumult That the Patriarch did not resign but was forced to go away and lookt upon himself still as the Rightful Patriarch is apparent from the express Testimony of several Authors and Evagrius himself in another place affirms That he was ejected The Emperor says Theodorus Lector supposing that Macedonius if he should have been judg'd would as innocent have been defended by the People sent him away by force to Chalcedon by Night and commanded him to be carried from thence to Euchaâ—â—a and the next day he made one Timotheus Patriarch in his stead Anastasius the Emperor says Victor Tununensis deposed Macedonius the Bishop of Constantinople by Violence and sent him away into Banishment because he refused to Condemn the Council of Chalcedon and in his stead he made the
Autority we have all the reason in the world to believe That his Deprivation would have been lookt upon by S. Cyprian as very reasonable and just But let us still grant as we first supposed in our Question That he ought not to have been deprived by the Emperor himself but by Bishops Yet if he had been deprived for refusing to acknowledge the Emperor's Autority or if he had been upon any other account so deprived by the Imperial Autority as that it would have been impossible for him to exercise his Episcopal Jurisdiction Is it possible for any wise and unprejudiced Man to imagine That S. Cyprian would have thought so ill of Novatian and his Adherents as he did If an Enemy of the Roman Empire suppose the King of Persia should in S. Cyprian's time have taken a Frontier City and the Bishop of that City should have been deposed by him for refusing to submit to his Autority Who can believe that That great and wise Man S. Cyprian would have declared a new Bishop no Bishop and all his Adherents Schismatical That a second that is a Schismatical Bishop an Invader of a See already fill'd and possess'd is no Bishop is confess'd to be S. Cyprian's Doctrine But that our Bishops are in the Sence of S. Cyprian the Invaders of a See already fill'd and possess'd that they are secundi in his Sence is what we utterly deny Not a Word not a Hint in S. Cyprian from whence such a thing can be inferr'd The Vindicator may be pleas'd to consider that our present Possessors did not set up themselves in opposition to such as were possess'd of their Sees but before they pretended to be Bishops their Predecessors were made by the Supreme Civil Power uncapable of Governing i. e. were Depos'd Again he ought to consider that our present Possessors were so far from ambitiously invading like Novatian the Sees of others that they were all chose by their respective Churches according to the usual manner viz. in the same manner that their Predecessors themselves had been Let us hold up the Picture which the Vindicator has been pleas'd to draw to a true Light and then we shall the better see what a strange Figure it is The Vindicator's Enthymeme is this S. Cyprian says that he is no Bishop but a Schismatick who ambitiously invades a See which another is fully possess'd of Therefore S. Cyprian thought that he is no Bishop but a Schismatick who is chosen by the Church according to the usual manner into the place of another whom the Civil Power will not suffer to govern any longer because he refuses to own its Autority I add That if a Bishop be a secundus and no Bishop who is put into the place of one unjustly depos'd by the Civil Autority then it likewise must follow that he is a secundus and no Bishop who is put into the place of another whom a Synod has unjustly depos'd But this the learned Vindicator will neither himself grant neither does he I suppose believe that S. Cyprian thought so I say that must follow if we seriously consider the Matter For the onely good Reason assignable why in the former Case the Successor is a secundus and no Bishop is this Because the Predecessor has still a Right to the Bishoprick Now 't is certain that the Reason is the same in the latter Case For a Bishop whom a Synod has unjustly depriv'd has still as much Right to his Bishoprick as a Bishop invalidly depos'd by the Civil Autority For to me 't is absurd that any unjust Sentence should take away the Right tho' the Nature of Government requiring it it is oftentimes necessary that we should submit to such a Sentence And this if I am not mistaken is the common Sence of Mankind When a Bishop is unjustly depriv'd by a Synod we submit to his Successor not because we imagine that the other has no longer a Right but onely for Peace sake That a Bishop unjustly depriv'd by a Synod has still a Right to that Bishoprick as well as a Bishop deposed by an Incompetent Autority may be clearly demonstrated from this That after he is deprived he may be again restor'd and his Successor be deposed by Appeal to another Synod and yet the ejected Successor is accounted a true Bishop Now is that done justly or not There is no one will say it is not And yet it is impossible that the Successor should be justly deprived if the other had no Right To conclude That a Bishop who is put into the place of another unjustly deprived by the Secular Power is a real and true Bishop will by and by appear by the Opinion and the Practice of the Antients in general Let us now proceed to demonstrate that as the submitting to a Bishop whose Predecessor was unjustly deposed by the Civil Autority is not in it self a Sin so the ill Consequences to which it may be liable are either not so mischievous to the Church or not so likely to happen as the Evils we endeavour to avoid § 10. The Evils we endeavour to avoid area a Schism and a Persecution two Evils as great as can possibly befall the Church And that those two very great Evils must needs be the certain and the immediate Consequences of a non-submission is too evident to any Considering Man to need any Proof If the ill Consequences to which a submission may be liable are so great as those two Evils but not so certain or if they are so certain but not so great it must then be granted that with respect to Consequences a Submission is more reasonable than a Non-submission Now if we consider those evil Consequences which may justly be charg'd upon the Submission we shall find that they are so far from being both so great and so certain that they are neither so great nor so certain as those two Evils which by a Non-submission must unavoidably be brought upon the Church So far indeed is the Principle which we maintain from being necessarily attended with any very ill Consequence that it is not easy to foresee any Consequence at all that is Evil. As it is for the Good the Peace and Prosperity of the Church that we think our selves obliged to comply upon occasion with the Necessity of Times So if ever the Civil Power which to fear in this Reign would be very unjust and unreasonable should pretend to break in upon the Essentials of the Church we should then be obliged not to yield to such Impositions If the evil Day must needs some which God forbid we will keep it off as long as we can When it necessarily comes as now we shew our Prudence so we 'll then prove our Fortitude Not to endeavour to escape from Damascus when a Basket is fairly offer'd would be Folly in an Apostle And to run on to Martyrdom when it honestly may be avoided is according to the Sanctions of the Primitive Christians a Sin Should
pace maximi â—iri That this Notion of Heresy is a groundless and a fancyfull Notion That he may be properly call'd a Heretick who separates from the Church because the Church is not of his Opinion tho' the Opinion is not at all in its own nature Heretical I grant For there is a sort of Heresy which is not sinfull on the account of the Opinion maintain'd but onely because it is a separation from the Church But this I assert in opposition to what is laid down by the Vindicator That to all Heresy as the word is strictly taken to denote a Sin contradistinct to Schism it is necessary that there be an Opinion maintain'd which either the Church condemns or for which the Person that maintains it does of himself separate from the Church If it be not for any Opinion that the Vindicator is divided from the Church but onely for what is done by the Church he cannot be call'd in a strict sence a Heretick but onely a Schismatick § 13. But to wave this Dispute as not at all material and to suffer the Vindicator if he pleases to enjoy his Notion What now is the Use he would make of it What is his Design in advancing it The Use he makes of it is this He alleges the aforesaid Heresy as a Reason for their Separation He tells us That we being guilty of Heresy they ought by our own Concessions to keep off from our Communion because we our selves acknowlege that Heresy is a just cause of Separation Tho' we should admit says he that the Author of the Baroccian Treatise had been successfull in all that he has attempted we may yet justify our adherence to the deprived Bishops and our Separation from our Adversaries opposite Altars and justify it too by the Doctrine of their own Author for even he permits a Separation where Orthodoxy is concern'd and expressly excepts this Case from the Number of those which he pretends to confute An Heretical Bishop he calls a false Bishop c. 'T is strange that the worthy and learned Vindicator should be so much out in his Logick as not to see the Inconsistency of what he alleges and to offer this as a reason for their not communicating with us If it is their not communicating with us that makes our Opinion Heretical and us Hereticks how do they refuse to communicate with us for this reason because we are Hereticks We could not be Hereticks according to the Vindicator's own Notion 'till they had refused to communicate with us So dangerous a thing it is First to do a thing rashly and then to hunt for a Reason If this Plea of our Author is good I would very fain know how any Separation can be proved to be unlawfull Let our Author stand out a little and dispute with our old Dissenters He asks a Dissenter why he separates from the Church The Dissenter tells him 't is because the Church is Heretical But why Heretical Because she thinks it lawfull to oblige her Members to the use of Ceremonies and pursuant to that Opinion she actually imposes the use of ' em In the use of these Ceremonies says the Dissenter we cannot join with you and for that very reason because we cannot join with you in this Opinion That the Church has power to impose upon its Members the use of Ceremonies And because we cannot join with the Church in this Opinion and Practice upon that very account the Church is Heretical Thus according to our Author 's own Plea but the Plea would be vain and Illogical § 14. But this is not all We are not onely Hereticks upon that account but as the Vindicator contends we are Hereticks likewise as Heresy signifies an erring even in Fundamentals He affirms that our Opinion is a fundamental Error because as he says it is utterly destructive of the Church as the Church is a Society distinct from the State To maintain this Opinion That for Political Crimes a Bishop may be lawfully Depriv'd by the Civil Autority Or this That supposing he cannot be lawfully so depriv'd yet if he is deprived it is lawfull for Peace-sake to submit to his Successor How that is destructive of the Church as the Church is a Society I for my part cannot perceive To me 't is much more apparent that to advance this Opinion That a Bishop cannot be deprived by the Civil Autority for any Crime whatsoever is destructive of all Civil Government which as well as the Ecclesiastical is of God's Institution He therefore that advances that Notion advances a very dangerous Notion But it is not my Business at present to engage in these Disquisitions I shall onely make bold to ask the Vindicator a few Questions If he thinks that Opinion concerning the Power of the Magistrate a fundamental Heresy and enough to justify the present Separation how came it to pass that he did not leave the Communion of those whom he knew to be the Maintainers of that Opinion before this time I will ask him one Question more If the late Bishops should be again restor'd would he then refuse to communicate with those who advance that Opinion If he would not then it is certain that he does not think that enough to justify the present Separation One more and then I have done I desire to know if our Author knows none of his own Communion who themselves acknowledge the Power of the Supreme Civil Governor to depose a Bishop for Political Crimes 'T is strange if he should be ignorant of what every body knows And it is to be believ'd that the Fathers themselves of his own Communion at least some of 'em agree with us in this Opinion which the Church of England has all along to this time accounted Orthodox tho' the Vindicator is pleas'd to declare it a Heresy But enough and too much of these Matters We will leave our much honour'd Adversary to invent some other new Notion more consistent and more usefull for his Cause And will now proceed to enquire how Heretical our Forefathers were in thinking it lawfull to adhere to the present Possessor and in acting accordingly * An Answer to a Treatise out of Eccles History c. in the Preface * S. Cypr. Ep. 55. ad Anton. Ergo ille evangelii vindex ignorabat unum Episcopum esse oportere in Ecclesiâ Catholicâ says Cornelius Bishop of Rome in his Epistle to Fabius of Antioch Ap. Euseb. Hist. l. 6. c. 43. concerning Novatian To have two Bishops in one and the same City is adversum fas Sacerdotii singularis says Pacianus Epist. 3. ad Sympronianum Novatianum (a) Collat. Carthag 1. c. 16. (b) Theodoret Hist. Eccl. l. 5. c. 3. (c) And by the Synod of Sirmium to the Clergy and People of Rome in the Case of Felix and Liberius as Sozomen says l. 4. c. 15. but that Synod not was not Orthodox but Arian (a) Grâ—g Turon Hist. l. 10. c. 31. (b) Can. 4. (c) Can. 6.
he had read the spurious Epistle written in the Emperor Arcadius's Name to Pope Innocent The Emperor there tells the Pope That he had sent Acacius and Severianus to him to answer for what they had done 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. (a) Ep. 16. Innocentii P. I. (b) P. 331. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. (c) P. 405. (d) Ib. p. 409. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (e) Breviario c. 4. (f) Common super nomine Caelestii Pelagi Iuliani Concil tom 2. p. 1512. (a) Cod. Can. Eccles Afric c. 101. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (b) Hist. Eccl. l. 5. c. 34. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (c) P. 12. (d) MS. Baroc 91. fol. 27. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (a) Vide l. 6. c. 10. 15 16 18. (b) C. 19. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 20. (d) L. 7. c. 2. (e) Ib. c. 25. (f) Vide l. 5. c. 34. (g) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (h) Ap. Conc. Ephes parte 1. cap 18. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (a) P. 833. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (a) Theoph. p. 134. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 * Encom Eustath (b) Apolog. ad Imp. p. 702. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. (c) Chron. Eustathius quo in exilium ob fidem truso (d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 2. c. 19. (e) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chronol (f) Menaeum Graecorum Libellus Synodicus c. (g) Niceph Patr. loc cit Anastasius Sinaita Contempl. Anagog in Hexaem l. 9. (h) Martyrolog Rom. 17. Kal. Aug. alia Martyrologia (i) L. 1. c 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. (a) Ibid. (b) L. 1 c. 22. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (c) Socr. l. 1. c. 24. he omits Eulalius Theodoret shews that they did not endeavour to choose Eusebius till after Eulalius's Death Socrates is likewise in an error when he says there was a 8 Years vacancy between Eustathius and Euphronius (d) MS. Baroc 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (a) A further Account of the Baroccian M S. p 6 7. (b) L. 4. c. 14 15. (c) L. 6. c. 13. (a) His Body as it seems was afterwards remov'd to Philippi For Victor Tâ—n and Theodorus Lector say it was carried to Antioch from Philippi Theodorus thought that he was banish'd to Philippi (b) Praef. ad Theodorit Illud praeterea in Historiâ Theodoriti neprehendendum mihi videntur quod in toto opere nullam notam temporum adhibuit Quanto magis Laudanda est Socratis diligentia c. * Ad. Phot. Bibl. (c) Chron. ubâ— de Evagrio Ep. Constantipolitano (d) Catal. MS. Patr. Constantinopolitan in Histor. (e) L. 2. p. 557. (f) Not 490 as Victor Tun. and Valesius say for Calendion was not Patriarch so long (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. (b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (d) L. 2. c. 31. (e) P. 50 51. (f) Ep. 321 349. (g) Chron. an 329. Eustathio in exilium ob fidem truso usque in presentem diem Arriani Ecclesiam occupaverunt i. e. Eulalius Eusebius Euphronius Placillus Stephanus Leontius Eudoxius Meletius Euzoius Dorotheus rursum Meletius Quorum idcirco tempora non digessi quod cos hostes potius quam Episcopos Christi judicavi Vide ad an 361. (h) P. 688. Ed. in 40. (a) An Answer to a Treatise out of Eccles. Hist. p. 4 5. (b) Epiphan Haer. 77. c. 20. (c) Socr. l. 3. c. 6 7 9. Theodoret l. 3. c. 4 5. (d) L. 2. c. 26. (e) Chron. an 349. (f) Epist. Synod ad Damas. P. ap Theod. l. 5 9 p. 211. (a) L. 2. c. 38. (b) C. 49. (c) MS. Baroc 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (d) P. 559. (e) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (f) That the Affairs of a Province should be managed by the Bishops in General of that Province (a) Evagr. l. 3. c. 30 Victor Tun. p. 5. Macellinus Comet Cyrillus Seythop V. Sab.e. (b) P. 128. (c) C. 107. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (e) Theodorus Lector 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. (f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 V. Sabae c. 50. (a) Libel Synod c. 110. (b) The Unity of Priest-hood c. p. 58 59. (a) 'T is true S. Clement not onely advises the injur'd Presbyters at Corinth but tells them it was their real Interest to withdraw A farther Account of the Baroccian MS. p. 2. The Author of the Answer to a Treatise out of Eccles. Hist. p. 27. speaks doubtingly of it (b) Adv. Luciferianos (c) Ep. ad Steph. P. (a) So I call him because in the Conference he was depâ—red by the Emperor Honorias to represent him as â—udge by a particular Commission Because I did not call him by his old Title of Tribâ—oâ—â— Notarius one of my Answerers says he does not believe that I ever lookt into S. Austin or the Conference of Carthage which I quoted This both He and all others may rely upon That I never quote Authors but I have either read 'em my self or tell from whom I quote ' em (b) Socrâ— l. 7. c. 3. (a) Epist. 238. Longe est quippe gloriostus Episcopatus sarcinam propter Ecclesiae vitanda pericula deposuisse quam propter regenda gubernacula sussepisse Ille quippe se honorem si pacis ratio pateretur dignè â—accipere potuisse demonstrat qui acceptum non deseâ—dit INDIGNE Retribuatur ei pux â—terna quae promisa est Ecclesiâ—e qui intellexit siâ—i non expedire quod paci non expediat Ecclesiae (b) Ep. 54. Ad Maximum caeteros Confessores ex Schismate ad Ecclesiam reversos Dolebam vehementer graviter angebar quod cum cis communicare non possum quos semel diligere caepissem (a) Ap. Acta Concilii juxta Graeoâ—s VIII p. 276. (b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (e) Ep. 1. Ad Benignum Archiep. Non benè intelligunt Ecclesiasticas Regulas qui hoc negant causâ utilitatis aut necessitatis fieri posse quoties communis utilitas aut necessitas persuaserit * An Answer to a Treatise out of Eccles History c. in the Preface * S. Cypr. Ep. 55. ad Anton. â—rgo ille evangelii vindex ignorabat unum Episcopum esse oportere in Ecclesiâ Catholicâ says Cornelius Bishop of Rome in his Epistle to Fabius of Antioch Ap. Euseb. Hist. l. 6. c. 43. concerning Novatian To have two Bishops in one and the same City is adversum fas Sacerdotii singularis says Pacianus Epist. 3. ad Sympronianum Novatianum (a) Collat. Carthag 1. c. 16. (b) Theodores Hist. Eccl. l. 5. c. 3. (c) And by the Synod of Sirmium to the Clergy and People of Rome in the Case of Felix and Liberius as Sozomeâ— says l. 4. c. 15. but that Synod was not Orthodox but Arion (a) Greg. Turon Hist. l. 10. c. 3â— (b) Can. 4. (c) Can. 6. (d) Synesius Epist. 67. (e) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (g) S.