Treatises which Photius has given us a large account of abundantly testifie The fourth Saint is the Patriarch of Constantinople Iohn Nesteutes who is worshipt as a Saint by the Greek Church and had doubtless been worshipt in the same manner by the Latins if his styling himself Vniversal Bishop had not excited the Church of Rome against him which could never endure that any Bishop should pretend to be equal to the Pope of Rome This great Man was so far from being likely to comply for fear with what he thought unlawfull that there was not a Man in that Age more mortified to the World than he was When he was first made Patriarch it was utterly against his Will as we may learn from the Epistles of Pope Gregory the Great He was so given to Mortification and Fasting that from thence he had his Sir-name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He always went in a very mean Habit and was so far from being desirous of Riches that when he died he left behind him nothing but a wooden Bed on which he was wont to lie a woollen Coverlet of no value with a poor plain Cloak This account Theophylactus Simocattes a Writer of that Age gives of him Who adds That after his Death the Emperor Mauricius took this Bed Coverlet and Cloak of his and kept 'em as pretious Relicks preferring 'em before things of the greatest value and was wont in the Lent-time instead of his own rich Bed to make use onely of that as believing that that would convey to him Divine Grace This Patriarch says the same Author was a Person endow'd with the highest Degree of Divine Knowlege and advanced to the very heighth of Vertue c. Sophronius Patriarch of Ierusalem mentions one Iohn Patriarch of Constantinople Sir-named Cappadox from the Countrey where he was born whom he calls the Habitation of Vertue Some think him to be the same with our Iohn Nesteutes but in that I think they are mistaken for Iohn Nesteutes was never Sir-nam'd Cappadox He of whom Sophronius speaks was the Successor of Timotheus and the Predecessor of Epiphanius Patriarchs of Constantinople yet the great Elogium that he gives him makes nevertheless for our Cause For 't was he that communicated with Iohn Patriarch of Ierusalem who was put into the place of Elias unjustly deposed by the Emperor Anastasius and who himself had been Syncellus which before I had forgot to mention to Timotheus Patriarch of Constantinople who was put into the place of Macedonius unjustly deposed by the same Emperor See Page 134. and add that Paragraph here CHAP. XII S. Martin Pope of Rome being deposed without any Synod and banish'd by the Heretical Emperor Constans tho' he never resign'd yet Eugenius is chosen his Successor by the Clergy of Rome tho' at the same time they were zealous Asserters of the Orthodox Faith and had likewise a great love for S. Martin Eugenius is receiv'd and own'd by all as a true Pope and has been honour'd all along by the Church as a Saint S. Martin himself owns him as a true Pope and prays to God for him as such IN the Year 642 Pyrrhus the Monothelite Patriarch of Constantinople is said to have been deposed by the Senate and People of Constantinople being suspected to have poison'd the Emperor Constantine the Son of Heraclius and Paul himself likewise a Monothelite being ordain'd in his stead was receiv'd as a true Patriarch by all the Monothelites But tho' it is generally said that the Patriarch Pyrrhus was deposed yet I find upon strict enquiry that he was not actually deposed but that being sure that he should be deposed to avoid greater Mischiefs he himself resign'd his Dignity This Instance therefore I pass by In the Year 654 S. Martin Pope of Rome was violently deposed by the Emperor Constans His Crime no other but that by a Synod call'd at Rome he had asserted the Orthodox Faith and had condemn'd the Heresy of the Monothelites whose Cause the Emperor had espous'd But that which they alleged against him was That he had enter'd into a Confederacy with the Saracens and others of the Emperors Enemies and had spoken somewhat I know not what to the dishonour of the Virgin Mary That there was no Synod concern'd in the Matter is very notorious Let us hear what he himself says of the Circumstances of his Expulsion in his Epistle to Theodorus Spudeus who had sent to him then at Constantinople about it He tells Theodorus That Calliopas the Hexarch of Ravenna came to Rome with his Army and together with his Souldiers enter'd into the Church where he himself lay sick before the Altar and there deliver'd to the Clergy the Presbyters and the Deacons the Emperor's Command by which he was declar'd unworthy to govern any longer and they were requir'd to elect a new Bishop in his stead Then they took him by violence and carried him away privately to a Ship and so after some time to Constantinople What happen'd to him at Constantinople and what became of him afterwards we learn from an Anonymous Author who was at the same time at Constantinople and sent a particular account of all things to Rome whose Epistle is in the Tomes of the Councils falsly ascribed to Anastasius Bibliothecarius who was onely the Translator He tells us that S. Martin was there tried by a Court of Judicature consisting of Senators of which one Troilus the Sacellarius a great Officer of the Emperor's Court was President By which he was condemn'd to die for conspiring as was prov'd by false Witnesses against the Government But afterwards by the Intercession of Paul Patriarch of Constantinople who tho' his Adversary and a Monothelite could not but pity him for the extremely barbarous Usage which he met with after his Condemnation his Life was spared And he was banish'd to Cherso a Town upon the Lake Meotis where he died The same account we have in his Life which is extant in Surius But that Life was compiled out of this Anonymous Epistle and out of the Popes own Epistles and the Pontifical not composed by a Writer who lived at that time as Surius imagined Those words from whence Surius gather'd that the Author lived at that time were injudiciously transcribed by the Compiler out of this Anonymous Author Tho' such were the Circumstances of S. Martin's Deprivation tho' he was deposed by the Lay-power and not onely so but likewise by such as were Hereticks tho' he was so much beloved by his Clergy as that when he was feiz'd by the Hexarch Calliopas some of 'em advised him to make opposition and others cried out that they would live and die with him tho' besides all this it is certain that he never resign'd nor gave his consent that the Clergy should choose another in his room which appears as well from the particular account which he himself gives of his being seiz'd and carried away as
concerning Elias that being Commanded by the Emperor to call a Synod and Condemn the Council of Chalcedon he did not indeed call a Synod but however he himself wrote a Letter to the Emperor in which he Anathematiz'd Nestorius and Eutyches Diodorus and Theodorus and the Council of Chalcedon This I say is a Notorious Error It is very well observ'd by Baronius That Theodorus was led into this Mistake by a Spurious Letter which the Hereticks had feign'd in Elias's Name Let us hear the Monks of Palaestine in their Epistle to Alciso which was written a little after whilst Elias himself was yet living The Hereticks say they require the Bishop of Jerusalem to give 'em an account of his Faith in Writing He accordingly sends an account of it to the Emperor by some that were Hereticks Now that Account which they produce contains an Anathema against those who assert two Natures i. e. against the Council of Chalcedon c. but the Bishop alleges that that is spurious and feign'd by them and produces a Copy of that which he sent which has no such Anathema in it This indeed is no wonder For so the Hereticks have often Corrupted the Writings of the Fathers and have falsly ascribed the Books of Apollinaris to Athanasius Gregorius Thaumaturgus and Pope Julius by which they have drawn over many to their Errors So great a Man was Elias that to bring over others of the Orthodox to their Party the Hereticks Forge an Heretical Belief in his Name It is true that when the Emperor Anastasius had Commanded a Synod to be called at Sidon over which those violent Hereticks Soterichus and Xenaias or Philoxenus were to preside in order to Condemn the Orthodox Faith Elias together with Flavianus that they might hinder the sitting of that Synod or break it up without any effect sent the Emperor a soothing and a complaisant Letter by which the Emperor was persuaded to dismiss the Synod without doing what had been intended Theophanes says That in that Letter Elias rejected the Council of Chalcedon but it appears from the Words of the Letter produced by Cyrillus Scythop that he did not reject the Doctrine of the Council but only said That he did not approve of the Council of Chalcedon because upon the account of that Council there had been great Scandals rais'd in the Church These Words deceiv'd the Emperor and he broke out afterwards into a mighty Passion when he saw that Elias was truly Orthodox and intended nothing less than the Condemning the Orthodox Faith Your Archbishop says the Emperor to S. Sabas whom Elias had sent to Constantinople has made himself the Champion of the Council of Chalcedon and not only so but has likewise drawn over to his Party Flavianus of Antioch of whom before the Heretical Party had some hopes but Elias had now set him beyond all their hopes I am not ignorant that he is at this time and so was before when he refused to subscribe to the Deprivation of Euphemius and Macedonius a Defender of the Council of Chalcedon I therefore now as thou seest Decree That he be Deposed Let your Majesty answer'd the great S. Sabas be fully persuaded That the Archbishop of our Holy City of God who has been instructed in all Godly Doctrines by the antient Luminaries of our Desart those Fathers the Workers of Miracles does reject as well the Nestorian Division as the Eutychian Confusion of the two Natures of our Saviour that he keeps the midway and enclines to neither the right Hand nor to the left We know that he embraces the Holy Doctrines of S. Cyril Archbishop of Alexandria and that he Anathematizes all those that are averse to them And therefore we beseech your Majesty that the Holy City of Jerusalem and our Archbishop may remain unmolested I could add much more to shew how untruly and unaccurately the Vindicator discourses concerning the unsteddiness of the Patriarchs Elias and Flavianus But I hasten to other Examples Only this I shall add That as Elias continu'd to his Death an undaunted Champion for the Faith so great and so singular was his Courage as that together with the Monks of Palaestine he denounced an Anathema upon even the Emperor himself then alive Evagrius speaks of it as of an Example of extraordinary stoutness There were some says he of the Orthodox that struck the Emperor Anastasius ' s Name as being a Heretick out of the Diptychs But at Jerusalem even whilst he was alive he was Anathematiz'd But it was not only Elias and Flavianus those two great Patriarchs of Ierusalem and Antioch that Communicated with Timotheus and acknowleged him as Bishop of Constantinople For Fourthly We are assured by Theodorus Lector that the great Abbot of the Monastery of Studium at Constantinople refused to be Consecrated by Timotheus whilst he thought him a Heretick but as soon as Timotheus had given him an Assurance that he was not so without the least scruple concerning the unjust Deprivation of his Predecessor Macedonius he readily yielded to be Consecrated by him The Abbot says Theodorus of the Monastery of Studium being Dead Timotheus the Patriarch went to the Monastery to Consecrate a new Abbot But he who was to be Consecrated told him That he could not receive the Blessing from one that had Condemn'd the Council of Chalcedon Timotheus hereupon denounced an Anathema against all those that were either averse to or Condemn'd that Council Then he that was to be Consecrated receiv'd the Benediction from his Hands This is to be supposed to be the Act not only of the Abbot himself though that alone would be very considerable but likewise of the whole Monastery The same thing we find related by Theophanes and Nicephorus Callisti And they all speak of it as a thing they very well approved of Fifthly It appears from Theophanes that the Orthodox Party of Constantinople Communicated generally with him Timotheus says he being willing to insert the Name of Severus in the Diptychs and to strike out that of Flavianus was hinder'd by the People For all the Orthodox declin'd the Communion of Severus A plain Intimation The same is attested by Marcellinus Comes who speaks of the Orthodox their being at Church at that time when the Words Who hast Crucified for us were by the Command of the Emperor added to the Trisagium Which as he says was the next year after the Promotion of Timotheus I know that Evagrius and Theophanes thought that those Words were added in the time of the Patriarch Macedonius but Cedrenus and others agree with Marcellinus I might add That if Marcellinus was mistaken in placing it a year too low yet his placing it in the time of Timotheus is however an Argument for what we Assert for he could not have been guilty of such a mistake if he had known that the Orthodox did not Communicate with Timotheus Sixthly It appears from
anno 538.3 From an Epistle of the Church of Austrasia to him written by their King Theodebert and sent by an Embassadour to him to know his Judgment what Penance ought to be inflicted on one who had Married his Brother's Wife That there was such an Epistle written to him by K. Theodebert is plain from an Epistle which he wrote to Caesarius Archbishop of Arles And that that Epistle was sent him just after he was promoted to the Popedom is apparent from the date of his Epistle to Caesarius for that is dated on the 6 th of March 538. I take no notice of what is said by the Cardinal Baronius and the Editors of the Councils that the two aforesaid Epistles of Eutherius and K. Theodebert were written not to Vigilius but Silverius and that being brought to Rome after the Expulsion of Silverius Vigilius took upon him to answer ' em That is onely an Evasion and 't is plain from Vigilius's Words that those Epistles were written not to Silverius but directly to him And certain it is moreover that Vigilius writes both in his Epistle to Eutherius and likewise in that to the Archbishop of Arles as a Pope universally acknowleged 4. It may possibly be alleged That Vigilius when he was made Pope sent his Communicatory Letters to the Hereticks Theodosius Anthimus and Severus and confirm'd their Heretical Doctrines that therefore they who communicated with him and own'd him as true Bishop of Rome were men of no Principles since they own'd a Heretick to be a true Pope To this I answer That all that was done by Vigilius in reference to the Hereticks was done secretly and was not known to the Orthodox who communicated with him till after he had utterly forsook the Hereticks This appears 1 st from the Testimony of Liberatus Diaconus who speaking of the engagement between Vigilius and the Empress says that it was a secret that she secretly perswaded him to promise to communicate with those Hereticks and speaking afterwards of his Communicatory Letters to the Hereticks and of his subscribing to their Heresy he adds that this he did occulté 2. From the Communicatory Letter it self which Vigilius wrote to the Hereticks and to which he added his Subscription to their Doctrine For in that as it is extant in Liberatus and Victor Tununensis he expresly charges 'em not to let any one know that he had written to 'em and pretends this Reason because by keeping it secret he should be the better able to advance their Cause So far indeed was Vigilius from being publickly known to be a Communicator with Hereticks and a Subscriber to their Heresy that the Author of the Pontifical tells us That he absolutely refused to do as he had promis'd the Empress and was therefore persecuted by her CHAP. IX Macarius Patriarch of Jerusalem being deposed by the Emperour Justinian his Successor Eustochius is own'd as a true Patriarch by the Fifth General Council and the whole Catholick Church After some time Eustochius himself is deposed by the Emperour and Macarius being restored is received by the Church According to our Adversaries Principles either Eustochius or Macarius after his Restauration was no true Patriarch yet the Church receiv'd both ABout the end of the Year 548 the 22d of the Reign of Iustinian Macarius was constituted Patriarch of Ierusalem in the room of Peter deceas'd After two years time he was deposed by the Emperour partly because he had been promoted without his Consent and partly because he was suspected to be a favourer of the Origenian Hereticks and great Riots were rais'd at Ierusalem on his account He being deposed Eustochius was preferr'd in his stead After Peter says Nicephorus Callisti Macarius was ordain'd Patriarch of Jerusalem without the Emperour's Consent and was therefore deposed For he was said to be a great promoter of the Doctrines of Origen He being expell'd Eustochius was advanced to the holy Chair As Nicephorus intimates in these words That he was deposed by the Emperour So in another place he says so expressly And Evagrius intimates the same thing And that there was no Synod no formal Trial may be gather'd from hence That Evagrius and after him Nicephorus Callisti say onely that it was reported that he was a favourer of the Origenian Doctrines Had he been formally tried and condemn'd they would not have used that word To these I add the Testimony of Cyrillus Scythopolitanus who flourish'd in Palaestine at that time After the death says he of the Archbishop Peter Macarius being through the boldness of the Neolauritans ordain'd in his stead and there being great Riots in the City the most pious Emperour incens'd against Ascidas and the Origenists commanded Macarius to be expell'd his Bishoprick Now the Abbot Conon and his Associates took hold of that opportunity and presented the Emperour a Libel concerning the impious Doctrine of the Origenists and by that means being admitted to speak freely to the Emperour got Eustochius the Oeconomus of the Church of Alexandria then at Constantinople to be nominated Patriarch So our most holy Emperour commanded Eustochius to be ordain'd Patriarch and a General Council to be call'd Theophane's says Macarius was wrongfully deposed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. factione as Anastasius Bibliothecarius renders it by a malicious Conspiracy of his Enemies Eustochius being thus promoted was own'd as Patriarch of Ierusalem by the whole Catholick Church in the Fifth General Council in which he had his Representatives and continued Patriarch about eleven or twelve Years After this he himself was deposed by the Emperour and Macarius was agen restor'd having clear'd himself from the Imputation of Heresy by subscribing to the Condemnation of Origen Evagrius and Didymus The Historian Evagrius where he reckons up the several Patriarchs that govern'd the Catholick Church about the end of Iustinian's Reign has these words Macarius was Patriarch of Jerusalem being restored to his Throne after the Deposition of Eustochius because he had Anathematized Origen Didymus and Evagrius For what reason Eustochius was deposed Evagrius does not tell us Nicephorus Callisti tells us that the Emperour deposed him because he refused to subscribe to his Opinions concerning the Incorruptibility of the Body of Christ. But Theophanes gives us another reason He says it was because he expell'd the Monks of the Nova Laura in Palaestine as Origenists What the true Reason was is not easy to guess As for that which Nicephorus assigns it seems to be confirm'd by an Epistle of Nicetius Bishop of Trier to the Emperour concerning the Heresy which he had lately embraced in which he mentions that the Emperour to advance his Doctrine had expell'd several Bishops out of their Sees What several Bishops those should be we know not unless Eustochius might be one of 'em for we read of but one deposed on that account and that was Eutychius the Patriarch of Constantinople
asserted by Theophanes who adds That Eutychius was restor'd on October following It appears from this exact account which Theophanes has given us of the time of Iohn's Death that he was Patriarch as I said 12 Years 7 Months and 22 Days For from Ianuary 22. Indict 13. on which Eutychius was deposed to Aug. 31. Indict 10. on which Iohn died is 12 Years 7 Months and 25 Days and Iohn was made Patriarch three days after Eutychius was deposed Fourthly Evagrius who flourish'd in those very times says That Iohn was Patriarch at that time when Tiberius was created Caesar which according to Evagrius himself was many Years after the beginning of Iustin's Reign The Chronicon Paschale assures us it was on the Eighth Indiction September 7 the Emperor's Eighth Year He should have said the Emperor's Tenth Year for September 7. Indict 8. falls in with the end of the Tenth Year of that Emperor So Theophanes tells us That Tiberius was made Caesar on the Tenth Year of the Emperor Iustin. Fifthly That Eutychius was not restor'd till after Tiberius was made Caesar is attested likewise by the Emperor Basilius who tells us that he was restor'd by Iustin and Tiberius Sixthly That Iohn was Patriarch of Constantinople at least some Years after the beginning of Iustin may be confirm'd from the Testimony of the Patriarch Photius for he mentions his acting as Patriarch on the 1 st Indiction which was three Years after the death of Iustinian To all these I add the Testimony of Eustratius the Writer of Eutychius's Life who tells us in express words That our Patriarch Iohn died a little before Eutychius was restor'd and that Eutychius was restor'd by Iustin and Tiberius and that he continued at Amasea in Banishment above Twelve Years Secondly as it is to be presum'd that Iohn was generally receiv'd and acknowleged as a true Bishop of Constantinople since he sate in the Chair as long as he liv'd for the space of Twelve Years and about Eight Months and under an Orthodox Emperor so particularly it appears from Eustratius that the People of Constantinople did all in general acknowlege him and that too tho' at the same time they exceedingly lov'd Eutychius and lookt upon him as unjustly deposed Eustratius tells us That as soon as John was dead not before the People petition'd the Emperors Iustin and Tiberius that their old Patriarch might be restor'd He adds concerning the Emperors That they had a very great respect for him even whilst he was in Banishment and that sufficiently appears from their restoring him And here it is to be observ'd that tho' they had a great Honour for him and lookt upon him to be unjustly deposed yet because Iohn was now possessed of the See they did not think there was any Reason why they should turn out Iohn to restore him they therefore staid till Iohn was dead and then restor'd him How much he was belov'd by all sorts of People as well of other places as of Constantinople and how much all rejoiced at his being restor'd and with how great Pomp and Splendor he was receiv'd at Constantinople Eustratius describes at large Thirdly It appears from the express Testimony of Theophanes That Iohn Patriarch of Alexandria Successor to Apollinarius and Predecessor to Eulogius was ordain'd Patriarch by our Iohn of Constantinople and that tho' he was so ordain'd yet he was own'd by the Church and continu'd in the See of Alexandria Eleven Years Said Ebn Batric who was Patriarch of Alexandria about 600 Years ago mentions one Iohn Patriarch of that See and Successor to Apollinarius whom he styles a Manichee and says that he govern'd but Three Years and was succeeded by one Athanasius a Iacobite But this Iohn was not he of whom Theophanes speaks but one of the Heretical Patriarchs of Alexandria For in those days the two several Parties of Alexandria the Melchites and the Iacobites had two distinct Patriarchs Said himself mentions a little after one Iohn an Orthodox Patriarch of Alexandria the Predecessor of Eulogius who govern'd as he says Eleven Years and was made Patriarch the Sixth Year of the Emperor Iustin Iunior This is he whom Theophanes speaks of Evagrius speaks of him as of a Bishop acknowleged by all Fourthly It likewise appears that Anastasius the Patriarch of Antioch communicated with Iohn of Constantinople and that too tho' he himself had it not been prevented by Iustinian's death had been turn'd out of his See for defending that Truth for which Eutychius was deposed and consequently must be supposed to have had a great esteem for Eutychius and no great love for his Successor Iohn Concerning Anastasius Theophanes has these words In the Fifth Year of the Emperor Justin the Younger the great Anastasius Bishop of Antioch having severely reprehended John Bishop of Constantinople who had ordain'd John Patriarch of Alexandria and likewise the Patriarch of Alexandria himself who had been ordain'd viz. in his Answer to the Synodical Letter which John of Alexandria had sent him was thrust out of his Bishoprick by the Emperor who was angry with him for it and Gregory a Monk was Consecrated Patriarch in his room Agreeably to this Relation Ioannes Diaconus tells us That Anastasius was banished by the Emperor Justin because he freely reprov'd John Bishop of Constantinople But he onely follows Theophanes with whose Chronography which his great Friend Anastasius Bibliothecarius had turn'd into Latin he was doubtless well acquainted Valesius and after him some other Learned Men are of Opinion that therefore those two Patriarchs were reprov'd by Anastasius because the one was put into Eutychius's place and the other therefore ought not to have been ordain'd by him This none of our Adversaries have observ'd but I observe it for 'em for it is not my design to shuffle conceal and prevaricate but to present the Reader with a fair and impartial account of the Practice of the Antients Now to this I answer 1. That if Anastasius had absolutely refused to communicate with Iohn of Constantinople yet it cannot be prov'd that he did so because Iohn was put into the place of the unjustly deposed Eutychius For the reason of his refusing to own him as Bishop of Constantinople might have been onely because he thought him not Orthodox Since Eutychius was turn'd out because he would not subscribe to the Doctrine of the Aphthartodocetae it might reasonably be thought that Iohn who was put into his place did actually subscribe And that he was thought by some to be one of that Party appears from the Author of the Synodicon who says That He comply'd with the Doctrine of those that deposed his Predecessor And likewise from Eustratius who assures us that therefore they deposed Eutychius that they might put in one who would comply with 'em and he plainly enough intimates that Iohn did so No wonder therefore if Anastasius who was the
the Patriarchs Flavianus and Elias confuted Timotheus not known to them to be a Heretick when they communicated with him They are Honoured by the Church as Saints Page 70. CHAP. VII Flavianus Patriarch of Antioch being deposed by the Emperor Anastasius his Successor Severus is rejected by the Orthodox only because he was a Heretick Elias Patriarch of Jerusalem being violently deposed by the said Emperor his Successor John is immediately acknowleged by all the People though at the same time they hated him by the whole Church of Palaestine particularly the two great Abbots S. Sabas and S. Theodosius so famous for their Vndauntedness and Sanctity by Johannes Cappadox Patriarch of Constantinople and all the Greek Church by all the whole Church ever since those Times The Testimony of Photius Patriarch of Constantinople out of a Manuscript The old Patriarch Elias though so Tyrannically Deprived for adhering to the Orthodox Faith continues however to communicate with those who acknowledged his Successor Page 81. CHAP. VIII S. Silverius Bishop of Rome being violently deposed by Belisarius the Emperor Justinian's General his Successor Vigilius though put into his place so depriv'd though constituted by the bare Autority of Belisarius against the consent of the Clergy and though Silverius never gave up his Right is own'd and receiv'd by the 5th General Council and by all the Church as a true Pope He was generally own'd whilst Silverius himself was living Baronius's conjecture concerning his being again ordain'd after Silverius's Death confuted though for some time he communicated with Hereticks yet it was not known to the Orthodox who communicated with him Page 90. CHAP. IX Macarius Patriarch of Jerusalem being deposed by the Emperour Justinian his Successor Eustochius is own'd as a true Patriarch by the Fifth General Council and the whole Catholick Church After some time Eustochius himself is deposed by the Emperour and Macarius being restored is received by the Church According to our Adversaries Principles either Eustochius or Macarius after his Restauration was no true Patriarch yet the Church receiv'd both Page 97. CHAP. X. Eutychius Patriarch of Constantinople being violently deposed by the Emp. Justinian for refusing to subscribe to his Heresie John sirnamed Scholasticus is made Patriarch in his room After John was consecrated Patriarch Eutychius was condemned by an Assembly that consisted as well of Lay Lords as Bishops not only of Ecclesiasticks as the Vindicator contends He actually lays claim to the See despises the Sentence of his Iudges as null and invalid because they proceeded unjustly and uncanonically against him and Excommunicates them Notwithstanding all this his Successor because he prov'd Orthodox was receiv'd and own'd by all the Church as a true Patriarch He continu'd in the See near 13 years near 12 years under Justin the Younger an Orthodox Emp. He is own'd by the Church of Constantinople tho' at the same time Eutychius was exceedingly belov'd John an Orthodox Patriarch of Alexandria is consecrated by him For what reason Anastasius Patriarch by Antioch reprov'd the Patriarch of Alexandria for being ordain'd by him Anastasius did not refuse to communicate with him He is Honour'd by the Patriarch Photius with the Title of Saint Tho' Eutychius lookt upon his Deprivation as absolutely invalid and tho' he never resign'd but accounted himself still the rightful Patriarch yet he liv'd quietly and never endeavour'd to make a Division in the Church Dr. Crakanthorp's Opinion that Eutychius was deposed for being a Heretick confuted The Authority of the Life of Eutychius often quoted in this Chapter vindicated against the same Author Page 101. CHAP. XI S. Anastasius Senior Patriarch of Antioch being deposed without any Synod by the Emperor Justin Iunior tho' he never resign'd yet his Successor Gregory is own'd by all the Church He continued Patriarch till his Death for the space of 23 Years the old Patriarch Anastasius being all the while living Four Saints among those that lived at that time and communicated freely with him S. Symeon Stylites Iunior Pope Gregory the Great S. Eulogius Patriarch of Alexandria S. John Nesteutes Patriarch of Constantinople Pope Gregory communicates with him as Patriarch of Antioch tho' at the same time he declares Anastasius's Deprivation to be invalid and looks upon Anastasius to be the rightfull Patriarch S. Anastasius though deposed by the Lay-power and though he had never given up his Right yet never left the Communion of the Church Page 121. CHAP. XII S. Martin Pope of Rome being deposed without any Synod and banish'd by the Heretical Emperor Constans tho' he never resign'd yet Eugenius is chosen his Successor by the Clergy of Rome tho' at the same time they were zealous Assertors of the Orthodox Faith and had likewise a great love for S. Martin Eugenius is receiv'd and own'd by all as a true Pope and has been honour'd all along by the Church as a Saint S. Martin himself owns him as a true Pope and prays to God for him as such Page 128. CHAP. XIII Callinicus Patriarch of Constantinople being deposed without any Synod by the Emperor Justinianus Rhinotmetus his Successor Cyrus is receiv'd as a true Patriarch § 1. So likewise is Nicetas who was put into the place of the Patriarch Constantine deposed without any Synod by the Emperor Constantinus Copronymus § 2. Page 135. CHAP. XIV An Account of the Schism between Photius and Ignatius Patriarchs of Constantinople Photius who was put into Ignatius's place when deposed by the Emperor no such Person as his Enemies report him By how great a Party he was receiv'd The reason why some refused to acknowlege him was not so much because he was so constituted as because he was a Neophytus and was besides ordain'd by a Bishop Excommunicated and in their Iudgments stood himself Excommunicated at that time Ignatius professes that if Photius had been one of the Church i. e. if he had not been an Excommunicated Person at the time of his Consecration he would willingly have yielded to him Ignatius values the Counâ—ils that condemn'd him no more than he did the Lay-power The Vindicator in an Error concerning that Matter His Errors concerning the Council call'd the First and Second A New account of the reason of that Title His Error concerning the Greatness of the Synod of Rome call'd by P. Nicholas against Photius Photius after he was receiv'd by the Church and confirmed by a general Council is deposed by the bare Autority of the Emperor Leo yet his Successor Stephen is receiv'd by the Church Page 139. CHAP. XV. Nicolaus Mysticus Patriarch of Constantinople not deprived by a Synod as the Vindicator contends but by the Emperor Leo the Wise. § 1. Joseph Bishop of Brixia in Italy deposed without any Synod by King Besengarius yet his Successor Antony is own'd and receiv'd by the Church particularly by the Pope the Synods of Augspurg and Ravenna and continued in the See many years § 2. Basilius Camaterus and Nicetas Muntanes Patriarchs of
with God since these Expiations were the yearly renewing of that Covenant Nor can any of the Performances of the Christian Priesthood be compared to this unless we believe the Power of Transubstantiating These Examples of the Jewish High-priests alone were there no other to be alleged would sufficiently warrant our Submission to our present Possessors Let us now see what Examples those are § 3. Our first Example is that of the first High-priest that ever we know to have been deposed viz. of Abiathar He was deposed by the bare Autority of King Solomon for having adhered to Adonijah his elder Brother as small a fault as could be of that nature tho' afterwards he had submitted and acknowledged King Solomon's Autority as soon as ever he was made King Tho' Abiathar was thus deposed yet Zadok being by the same Autority placed in his room all the Nation of the Iews both Priests and People submit themselves to him and own him as High-priest Even the Sons of the deposed Abiathar Ionathan and Ahimelech act as Priests under Zadok Iosephus in his Iewish Antiquities has observ'd that this was the first Instance of a High-priest deposed From the beginning says he for 13 Successions there was no High-priest put into the room of another unless deceased after that some began to be constituted whilst their Predecessors were living What is said by some of the Rabbies concerning the Deprivation of Phineas the Grandson of Aaron was altogether unknown to Iosephus neither does it concern the Subject of this Treatise he being depriv'd if at all by God's immediate Act. It 's alleged by one of our Adversaries that Abiathar was not deposed by the Autority of the King but by that of the Sanhedrin or great Council And this he endeavours to evince from these two Considerations 1. Because it is said by the Rabbies that in Capital Causes it was lawfull onely for the Sanhedrin to judge the High-priest 2. Because Iosephus the Historian says of Ioab That before the King sent Benaiah to fall upon him he first sent him to fetch him from the Altar in order to bring him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Seat of Iudicature there to plead his Cause And if this Formality says our Author was used towards Joab before ever the Command was given to have him slain it 's probable â—he like was used towards Adonijah the King's Brother before he was slain and the like also to Abiathar before he was thrust from the Priesthood At present it is not my Business to assert the Autority of the Civil Power in depriving a Bishop or to shew that the Kings of Iudea had Autority to deprive a High-priest I suppose at present That the Deprivation of Abiathar by King Solomon was irregular and unlawfull and am onely to demonstrate That de facto he was deposed by the bare Autority of the King Now a thousand such little Nothings as our Author's Presumptions and Conjectures from what is related by Iosephus concerning Ioab I shall fully and unanswerably confute by producing the Words of the Scripture Now therefore as the Lord liveth says King Solomon which hath established me and set me on the Throne of David my Father and who hath made me a house as he promised Adonijah shall be put to death this day And King Solomon sent by the hand of Benaiah the Son of Iehoiada and he fell upon him that he died And unto Abiathar the Priest said the King Get thee to Anathoth unto thine own Fields for thou art worthy of death but I will not at this time put thee to death because thou barest the Ark of the Lord God before David my Father and because thou hast been afflicted in all wherein my Father was afflicted So Solomon thrust out Abiathar from being Priest unto the Lord. So likewise Iosephus And sending for Benaiah the Captain of his Guard he commanded him to go and slay his Brother Adonijah And calling to him the Priest Abiathar Thy bearing the Ark says he with my Father and those things which thou suffered'st in his service deliver thee from death but this punishment I inflict upon thee because thou tookedst part with Adonijah Stay thou not here nor come into my sight any more but go unto thy own Country and there live till the time of thy death For having thus sinn'd thou art not worthy to continue in Dignity as High-priest And thus for the aforesaid Cause the Family of Ithamar was deprived of the Honour of the High-priesthood Whatsoever was done to Ioab 't is as clear and apparent as the Sun That what was done to Adonijah and Abiathar was all done on a suddain without any manner of Judicial Process in the Sanhedrin by the bare Autority of the King But neither is it true that Ioab was ever cited to plead his Cause in the Sanhedrin For first Iosephus himself does not say so as our Author imagins For by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not meant the Court of the Sanhedrin that is wont to be called by Iosephus not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but the King 's own Tribunal where he himself sat Iudge and so 't is understood by both the Latin Translators Epiphanius Schol. and Gelenius 2. Even that which Iosephus does say is not true as appears by the words of the Scripture which Iosephus follows and mistakes Then tidings came to Ioab for Ioab had turned after Adonijah tho' he turned not after Absalom and Ioab fled unto the Tabernacle of the Lord and caught hold on the Horns of the Altar And it was told King Solomon that Ioab was fled unto the Tabernacle of the Lord and behold he is by the Altar Then Solomon sent Benaiah the Son of Iehoiada saying Go fall upon him And Benaiah came to the Tabernacle of the Lord and said unto him Thus saith the King Come forth And he said Nay but I will die here And Benaiah brought the King word again saying Thus said Ioab and thus he answered me And the King said unto him Doe as he said and fall upon him It is said expressly that the King sent Benaiah not to cite him to the Tribunal but immediately to fall upon him These Words Iosephus who oftentimes mistakes the true Sence of the Scripture by trusting too much to his Memory had forgot And because he remember'd that Ioab was commanded to come forth he therefore rashly conjectured that he was commanded to come to the Tribunal When the Reason why he was commanded to come forth was onely this Because it was thought not proper to shed his bloud at the Altar Much like the aforesaid Evasion of our English Author is that of the Jesuits Salianus and Menochius who would needs perswade us that what was done was not done by King Solomon alone but that Zadok likewise the Priest pass'd his Sentence upon Abiathar and condemn'd him to be
Vir laudabilis as he is call'd by Symmachus That mentis sanctissimae Vir as he is styl'd by the Emperour Gratian That Vir egregius eruditus in Scripturis That Ecclesiae Doctor as he is term'd by S. Ierome the most glorious Damasus as Theodoret calls him he that was adorn'd with all sorts of Vertue and was always ready to defend all true Apostolical Doctrines both by his Words and by his Actions as the same Author says of him He in a word whom the Emperour Theodosius by a Law makes the Rule and Standard of all Orthodoxy It may perhaps be objected That tho' our Damasus when he chiefly flourish'd was accounted so great and so worthy a Man yet in Felix's time he might be but a young Man and so his Autority will be much less considerable To this I answer That in the time of Pope Felix our Damasus was so far from being a young Man that when Felix was made Pope he was above fifty Years old and when Felix died to whom he had constantly adher'd he was above sixty And it was not full a Year after Felix's Death before he himself was advanc'd to the Honour of the Popedom This is manifest from hence That after he was made Pope viz. upon Liberius's Death in the Year 366 in the Month of October he liv'd according to those that say most but 18 Years and 2 or 3 Months more truly but 16 Years and yet when he died he was as S. Ierome his Familiar Friend attests about 80 Years of Age. He died as Marcellinus Comes witnesses in the Month of October when Antonius and Syagrius were Consuls that is in the Year 382. He was therefore 53 Years of Age when Felix was made Bishop and when Felix died he was in the 63d Year of his Age. Felix as is above said was promoted in the room of Liberius in the Year 355. and was again turn'd out upon the Restauration of Liberius somewhat less than two Years after Eight Years as has been already observ'd he liv'd after that and died on the 10th of the Kalends of December when Valentinian and Valens were Consuls i. e. in the Year 365. Liberius surviv'd Felix but about 10 Months for he died on the 8th of the Kalends of October in the Consulship of Gratian and Dagalaiphus i. e. the Year following This is plain from the express Words of the Presbyters Marcellinus and Faustinus I need not add any thing to consute that Story which we find in two fabulous Lives of Pope Damasus That when Pope Liberius was banish'd he constituted our Damasus his Vicar to supply his place in his absence and that he accordingly did so till Liberius was restor'd If that be true then he did not adhere to Pope Felix But it needs but very little Judgment were there no good Autority for what we have here laid down to discover the falseness of that Monkish Story and 't is easie to shew how little the Writers of it knew relating to Liberius's Banishment I shall take it for granted that there is no one so Injudicious as to hearken to it I must here add That tho' our Authors when they speak of the People's Aversion to Felix are wont to make use of general Terms and tell us that all the People refus'd to communicate with him yet I do not believe that they ought to be understood strictly but onely of the much greater Part. That Felix had a very considerable Party not onely amongst the Clergy but likewise amongst the Laity seems to me very probable from hence That within a Year after Felix's Death when Vrsinus or Vrsicinus was chose Pope by the Liberians and Damasus by the Felicians there arose a great Contention not onely among the Clergy but likewise among the Laity and Damasus then had the greatest part of the People on his side and many of 'em were so zealous and violent for him as that much bloud was spilt This Schism and Contention seems to have proceeded partly from some former Heats and Sidings of the People I know that the Presbyters Marcellinus and Faustinus say that Damasus had brib'd the People with a great Summ of Money But that is onely a malicious Suggestion such as might be expected from Persons so much his Enemies I shall not take notice that in the Pontifical it is said That when Felix was Martyr'd there suffer'd with him multi Clerici Fideles not onely many of the Clergy but likewise many others of the Faithfull The Story of his being put to Death is too uncertain much more the Circumstances of it Yet at least this appears from that Story that amongst the Antients 't was believ'd that many of the Laity as well as of the Clergy adher'd to him Having thus shewn what Reception Pope Felix met with at Rome I shall shew in the next place that tho' he was made Bishop in the room of the unjustly deposed Liberius yet first the Catholick Bishops of his own district communicated with him and receiv'd him as their Metropolitan Secondly His Ordinations were receiv'd and allow'd of as valid by even his Adversary Liberius Thirdly The whole Western Church has all along own'd him as one of the true Bishops of Rome It cannot be expected but that he who was Ordain'd by the Arians in the place of one deposed for opposing the Arians and likewise communicated with the Arians should by many be both thought and spoken ill of But whoever they were that did not approve of our Pope Felix because they thought him an Arian or because he was ordain'd by the Arians or because he communicated with the Arians their Autority and Judgment make nothing at all against us He was thought as has been already observ'd not onely by the People of Rome but likewise by S. Athanasius an Arian So Socrates calls him expressly tho' he mentions with all that others affirm'd he was Orthodox So likewise S. Ierome in his Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers tho' indeed in Sophronius's Greek Translation of that Work the word Arian is not to be found From this ill Opinion that many had conceiv'd of him it came to pass that by some there was this false story rais'd concerning him That as soon as he was put by the Arians into Liberius's place he was punish'd by God with the loss of his Eyes and afterwards died of a Pestilential Disease This Story is told of him by the Author of that Life of S. Athanasius which is extant in Photius Hence likewise it was that the Writer of one of the Lives of Pope Damasius whom another follows in his Fiction invented that Story above mentioned that Liberius made Damasus his Vicar to oppose the Endeavours of the Arians during the time of his Banishment He had read in S. Ierome that Felix was ordain'd by the Arian Acacius so he himself writes and thence he concluded that Felix himself was an Arian Thence
cannot with any shew of Reason be question'd since 't was easy for the Author to know it by the publick Registeâ—s 5thly I observe that amongst all the antient Writers who have mention'd his succeeding Liberius tho' he governd above a year and tho' they generally mention that the Laity of Rome refus'd to communicate with him yet not a word in any that the Bishops of the District of Rome refus'd to own him for their Metropolitan Had the Bishops of his District refus'd to own him it must needs have made such a noise as that some one or other would have mention'd it 2. That our Felix Ordain'd many Bishops and others is apparent not only from the express Testimony of the Pontifical but likewise from Reason it self since he govern'd as I but now said above the space of a Year and Liberius was in Banishment above two Years Now that all those whom Felix had ordain'd were receiv'd and approv'd of by Liberius when he was agen restor'd is apparent from this That there is not a word in any Author of so much as a Question rais'd against 'em And of this Baronius himself tho' no great Friend of Felix's does not at all doubt I here observe farther First That the Schismatical Presbyters Marcellinus and Faustinus and the Writer of Onuphrius's Register who likewise liv'd in those days tho' they were all Vrsinians and hated all those that adher'd to Felix yet giving an account what became of the Clergy that adher'd to Felix they onely say that after the death of Felix they had their Perjury pardon'd by Liberius and so were restor'd to their former Stations in the Church They do not say that they were pardon'd or absolv'd for any Sin committed in receiving a second Bishop but that they were pardon'd for their Perjury The other it seems was not reckoned a sin by either Liberius or those Writers Secondly That it appears from the Historian Philostorgius that Felix after he was ejected was still accounted a Bishop Felix says he who in the absence of Liberius had been consecrated Bishop of Rome when Liberius was agen restor'd retir'd to another place enjoying indeed the Honour and Title of a Bishop but without any District There are some of the Moderns as Platina if I well remember and others who say That after he was depos'd at Rome he was made the Bishop of some other Place but that indeed is not true They seem to have been deceiv'd by those words of Theodoret 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3. That the Church of Rome and withall the whole Western Church has all along own'd him for one of the true Bishops of Rome appears from all their antient Catalogues Martyrologies and Breviaries By all which it is manifest not onely that they have all along own'd him as a true Bishop of Rome but likewise that they have all along worship'd him as one of their Saints Vt verus Pontifex habetur says the Learned Papebrochius memoratus in omnibus Catalogis Breviariis Martyrologis haclenus in Ecclesia officio proprio colitur Hence it was that those Epistles were forg'd in his Name which are extant in Mercator amongst the Epistles which are forg'd in the Names of the rest of the Popes Hence likewise in the antient Collectors of Canons such as Ivo Carnotensis and Gratian there are extant certain Decrees in his Name as Authentick and good Law taken out of the aforesaid Epistles He is own'd as a Saint and true Pope by the Historians Martinus an Arch-bishop of Poland in the Thirteenth Century Marianus Scotus in the Eleventh Century Albo Floriacensis in the Tenth Anastasius the Librarian and the German Author of the Book de Vitis Pontificum attributed to Luitprandus Bishop of Cremona in the Ninth So likewise in the antient Martyrologies In the genuine Martyrology of our Venerable Bede near 1000 Years ago and in those of Florus and Wandelbertus he is mention'd In others more fully In the Roman publish'd by Baronius Sancti Felicis II. Papae Martyris In that of Vsuardus Natalis Sancti Felicis Papae qui à Constantio Augusto à sede suâ dejectus c. In that of Notkerus Nativitas sancti Felicis Papae Again Ejecit Constantius sanctum Felicem Vrbis Episcopum de sede Episcopatûs sui In that of Ado Arch-bishop of Vienna who flourished in the Ninth Century as did likewise Vsuardus and Notkerus Beati Felicis Pontificis Agen in the same words with Notkerus Ejecit Imp. Constantius c. Agen Depositus sanctus ac beatissimus Papa Felix In that of Rabanus Arch-bishop of Mentz who flourish'd in the beginning of the same Age Passio Felicis Papae Martyris In another ascrib'd to Bede and extant amongst his Works but not truly his S. Felicis Pontificis In the Sacramentarium of Pope Gregory the Great who flourish'd in the Year 590 Beati Felicis Martyris tui atque Pontificis intercessio gloriosa nos protegat To these I add the antient Pontifical which was writ as I said above 1150 Years ago about the Year 534 in which he is mention'd as a Saint and one of the true Popes And here agen I must repeat what has been already observ'd That so great was the Honour which the Church had for him in the time of Pope Damasus that 't is said by the Vrsinian Presbyters Marcellinus and Faustinus that Damasus was chose not into the room of Liberius but in Felix's place Tho' that cannot be true since as those Presbyters themselves attest those of the Clergy who chose Pope Damasus had after Felix's death been reconcil'd to Liberius and they did not pretend to chuse Damasus till after the decease of Liberius Yet I say it is manifest from that Insinuation that all Damasus's Party that is the Church at least the Clergy of the Church had still a great honour for Felix and still lookt upon him as one of their true Popes As he is own'd for a true Pope by the whole Western Church so likewise in the Eastern by Nicephorus the Patriarch of Constantinople who flourish'd in the Year 806. and that too tho' Nicephorus well knew that he came into the place of Liberius when Liberius was unjustly depos'd by the Emperour In his Chronology as Liberius is reckon'd the 35th Bishop of Rome so our Felix is call'd the 36th To all this I add That among all the antient Writers who have mention'd our Felix his succeeding Liberius there is not so much as one that either says expressly or gives any Hint that upon that account it was not lawfull for the Church of Rome to submit to him or that upon that account he could not be a true Bishop The Schismatical Presbyters Marcellinus and Faustinus are the onely Writers that have any thing looking that way They say that the Clergy of Rome accepted of Pope Felix contra fas quod minimè decebat cum summo perjurii scelere But it
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
with Schismaticks even such as themselves took for such Much more of the same Nature he very Vnworthily throws at ' em To all which I Answer 1. That when they Subscribed to the Synodical Letters of Timotheus at the same time they absolutely refused to Subscribe to the Deprivation of Macedonius because they thought it Unlawful and though as Cyrillus tells us the Emperor was extreamly enraged against 'em because they refused to Subscribe to the latter and immediately resolv'd to Depose 'em yet they never could be prevail'd with to do it They still continued to Communicate with Timotheus but to their dying day did never Subscribe to the Deprivation of Macedonius From hence it is manifest that they receiv'd Timotheus into Communion not because they dar'd not hazard their Places but because they thought they might Lawfully do it 2. It is utterly untrue that they knew Timotheus to be a Heretick Had our Author judged Candidly as he ought to have done he would easily have judged of himself that the Synodical Letters which Timotheus sent to Flavianus and Elias contained in 'em nothing Heretical since such Men as they receiv'd ' em And had he look'd nicely into the Histories and Concerns of those Times he would have found that Timotheus did not presently appear to be a Heretick They that knew him very well or were nicely inform'd concerning him did believe that he was so and accordingly withdrew from his Communion But certain it is that to the Catholicks who did not well know him he pretended to be one of their Party It is certain that after he was made Patriarch he denounced an Anathema against all those that were either averse to or Anathematiz'd the Council of Chalcedon This an antient and an authentick Historian expresly affirms So far indeed was he from denouncing an Anathema against the Council of Chalcedon in his Synodical Letters that Liberatus Diaconus expresly asserts that upon that very account because he did not the Eutychian Patriarch of Alexandria refus'd to Communicate with him The same Author plainly intimates That Timotheus as well as Flavianus and Elias Subscribed in his Synodical Letters to the Council of Chalcedon and the Epistle of Pope Leo. Ioannes Nicaeotes says he the Patriarch of Alexandria pursu'd the steps of his Eutychian Predecessors receiving indeed the uniting Edict of Zeno Non autem Chalcedonense Concilium Epistolam Papae Leonis tanquam non communicaret Flaviano Antiocheno Eliae Hierosolymorum Episcopis Timotheo Constantinopolitano Another Authority is that of the Historian Evagrius who affirms That the Synodical Epistles of Severus who succeeded Flavianus in the See of Antioch about a year or two after Timotheus was made Patriarch of Constantinople were because they Anathematiz'd the Council of Chalcedon receiv'd by none of the then Patriarchs besides the Patriarchs of Alexandria Therefore according to the Testimony of Evagrius the Synodical Epistles of the Eutychian Severus were rejected by Timotheus If Evagrius was mistaken at least from what he says it is manifest That Timotheus was believ'd by many to be Orthodox To these I add the express Testimony of Nicephorus Callisti Elias says he and Flavianus receiv'd Timotheus into Communion as seeming to be Orthodox But the Banishment of Macedonius they did not approve off as being by Violence and against the Laws of the Church 3. Though the Patriarch Flavianus was by the Persecutions of his Enemies so far prevail'd upon as to subscribe to the Condemnation of Theodoret Ibas c. yet 't is certain from the Epistle of the Monks of Palaestine to Alciso that he Condemn'd 'em upon Supposition that they were Nestorians And though by repeated Persecutions he was further prevail'd upon to Subscribe against the Council of Chalcedon yet from the same Authentick Monument it is manifest that he subscribed against the Doctrine of it only upon this Supposition That it was as his Potent Enemies contended Nestorian For it 's plain that at the very same time he own'd that Council as to its Condemning Eutyches 'T was this Subscription of his that occasion'd all those Reports which we find in some Authors particularly in Theophanes the Chronographer concerning his Anathematizing the Council of Chalcedon That all those Reports are very great Mistakes and that he never could be prevail'd upon though his Persecutions were intolerable though by all manner of Afflictions his Enemies endeavoured to force him to Anathematize that Council or to Subscribe to the Eutychian Heresie and that at last because he could not be prevail'd upon he lost his Bishoprick is very apparent from the aforesaid Epistle They many ways afflicted him as Cyrillus Scythopelitanus says and as it were Strangled him to make him comply yet even at this time he Communicated still with Timotheus How great an Honour the Orthodox had for him may be gather'd from the publick Acclamations of the Orthodox Party of Tyre just after the Death of the Emperor Anastasius They demand that his Name which had been struck out by the Hereticks should be again restor'd to the Diptychs of the Church and are very zealous to have his Body brought to their City that there it might be disposed of after the most honourable manner And that this might be done â—s the Request of the Synod of Tyre to the Synod of Constantinople It is just say they that his venerable Name should be inserted in the Sacred Diptychs who suffer'd so much for Christ our God and for the true Faith c. In a word so great an Honour has the Church had all along for him that to this very day he is Worship'd as a Confessor and a Saint By Marcellinus Comes who was living at that time he is call'd expresly a Confessor By Nicephorus Callisti he is styl'd a very great Man 4. As for the Patriarch Elias he likewise is honoured by the Church as a Saint and a Confessor though till he was Deposed from his See he still continu'd to Communicate with Timotheus As Flavianus was Deposed for his Constancy at Antioch so was Elias a little after at Ierusalem He is call'd by Cyrillus of Scythopolis Elias who was truly a High Priest of God By the Author of the Synodicon Elias the Preacher of God By the Author of the Baroccian Treatise The Great the Blessed Elias By Nicephorus Callisti The most Celebrated Elias And so Holy a Man was he esteem'd That Cyrillus says That after his Ejectment the time of his own and likewise the Emperor Anastasius's Death was Reveal'd by God to him Neither was he a young Man at that time when he was Deposed and when he Communicated with Timotheus but a Man of a very great Age of no less than Eighty One years when first he began to Communicate with him and of Consequence fully instructed in the Doctrine and Practice of the Catholick Church What we Read in Theodorus Lector
are always distinguish'd by the Title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 both from Bishops and from Prefects of Monasteries In the Acts of the IV General Council of Constantinople the Temporal Lords that sate there are sometimes call'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 very frequently 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as well simply as with an Epithet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In Anastasus Bibliothecarius his Latin Version Omnes Episcopi cum magnificentissimis Principibus clamaverunt Photius says Nicetas Paphlagonius gather'd against Ignatius the ejected Patriarch 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In the Account of the Trial and Condemnation of S. Martin Bishop of Rome translated out of Greek by Anastasius Bibliothecarius the Senators who were his Judges there were no Bishops among 'em are entitled Principes from the Greek Title 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is said in the Greek Synodicon that certain Bishops and Monks that were disaffected to the Patriarch Ignatius got him to be deposed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In which place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies the Secular Power so appropriated to the Lasty was the Title 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To this I add that in the Euchologium the Title 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is explain'd by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This being premises there are Three things to be observ'd concerning Eutychius's Deprivation 1. That the Successor Iohn was ordain'd and possess'd of the See before Eutychius had been condemned by any Court of Judicature Agreeably to this Nicephorus Callisti tells us that Iohn was ordain'd Patriarch but three days after Eutychius was violently deposed by the Emperor 2. That the Court that afterwards condemn'd him consisted as well of Lay-Lords as Bishops 3. That he never gave up his Right but look'd upon himself still as the rightful Patriarch laid claim to the See and excommunicated the Assembly that condemn'd him as acting contrary to the Prescription of the Canons and therefore invalidly Tho' such were the Circumstances of Eutychius's Deprivation and of Iohn's Promotion yet by all the Orthodox both of that Age and likewise of the following Ages Iohn was own'd and receiv'd as a true Patriarch of Constantinople 1. He continued Patriarch not only till the Death of the Emperor Iustinian which was not above three quarters of a Year after his promotion but likewise for many Years after and that too under an Emperor who did not follow the Heresie of Iustinian but was all along a Defender of the Orthodox Faith The Emperor Iustinian Iunior says Theophanes was compleatly Orthodox Evagrius Ioannes Biclarienses and others affirm the same and it plainly appears by his Edict concerning the true Faith under that Emperor our Iohn continued Patriarch of Constantinople during all his own Life for the space of near Twelve Years and died Aug. 31. A. 577. after he had govern'd in all Twelve Years Seven Months and Two and Twenty Days It 's observ'd by one of the Answerers of the Baroccian Treatise out of Nicephorus Callisti That the Emperor Justinian became so sensible of the injury he had done Eutychius and of his right to the Chair of Constantinople that upon his death Bed he order'd his Successor Justin to restore him And this says he was presently done for Nicephorus Patriarch of Constantinople says John sate but two Years and Paulus Diaconus says Eutychius crown'd Justin. He adds That John died in a very convenient time just as Eutychius was to be restor'd or else perhaps he might have been an Example on the other side and we should have met with a Patriarch dethron'd as an Intruder That he knows other Historians put off John 's Death and Eutychius 's Restauration to the Ninth or Tenth Year of Justin but they are Men he says of little Credit and Dr. Crakanthorp in his Book of the Fifth Synod p. 340. has confuted them already So far our Author with no less Ignorance than Assurance That Crakanthorp pretends to confute those Authors is true that he has really confuted 'em none will affirm but such as are as little acquainted with Antiquity as our Answerer 'T is true That Nicephorus Callisti relates that the Emperor Iustinian gave order on his Death-Bed that Eutychius should be restor'd But he does not say that Iustinian order'd that Iohn should be deposed that so Eutychius might be restor'd Nicephorus understood the Emperor's meaning to be this That Eutychius should be restor'd provided he out-liv'd the present Possessor For afterwards he has these words Justin after the Death of the Patriarch John recalled Eutychius as Justinian had order'd in his Will If we go and consult the Arabians we shall meet with some that will tell us That Eutychius was restor'd by Iustinian himself So Said Ebu Batric in his Arabick Annals But as for that Author he plainly discovers that he knew just nothing of the Matter Yet even he himself allows our Patriarch Iohn no less than Seven Years When Paulus Diaconus says That the Emperor Iustin was crown'd by Eutychius he commits a manifest not onely Error but Blunder For Anastasius Bibliothecarius the Author whom he follows says expressly that it was Iohn that crown'd the Emperor Iustin. And so 't is expressly affirm'd in Theophanes his Chronography out of which Anastasius translated his History and out of Theophanes likewise by Cedrenus But granting you will say that Paulus Diaconus errs and that Iustin was crown'd by Iohn yet how does it appear that Iohn continued Patriarch for so many years It appears First from the Testimony of Nicephorus Callisti who in his MS. Catalogue of the Patriarchs of Constantinople affirms that Iohn continued Patriarch 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 12 Years and 7 Months And hence it plainly appears that in Nicephorus the Patriarch's Chronology it ought to be read not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I need not observe that the Greek Copy of Nicephorus's Chronology out of which Anastasius Bibliothecarius made his Latin Translation had as I have corrected it The thing is plain of it self In the same Chronology it is said by a like mistake of the Transcriber that Eutychius was restor'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nicephorus Callisti in his MS. Catalogue adds That Eutychius was restor'd upon John ' s Death the 12 th Year of the Emperor Justin. Secondly In the Catalogue of the Patriarchs of Constantinople which is extant in Leunclavius's Ius Graeco-Romanum the same time abating but one Month is allotted him And the same Author affirms that he was Patriarch not onely under Iustin but likewise under Tiberius meaning that time in which Tiberius had the management of Affairs together with Iustin as Caesar. Thirdly That Iohn continued Patriarch till Aug. 31. Indict 10. the 12th Year of the Emperor Iustin is expressly
the Author of which could not but be very well acquainted with the Diptychs of the Church of Constantinople He affirms That both John and Eutychius were received by the Church To this I add That Photius the Patriarch of Constantinople who flourished in the Year 858 calls our Patriarch Iohn Saint John or John of blessed Memory Archbishop of Constantinople He was not onely own'd and receiv'd as a true Patriarch but was likewise accounted a very worthy and a holy Patriarch Eighthly That there was no Schism no Division in the Church on Eutychius's account and that he himself tho' he had never resign'd but always lookt upon himself as the rightful Patriarch of Constantinople did nevertheless continue in Communion with the Church I gather from hence That when Iohn was dead the Emperors Iustin and Tiberius or the Emperor and Caesar having decreed that Eutychius should be restor'd sent Messengers away to Amasea commanding 'em to bring him away to Constantinople to be restored to his Dignity whether willing or unwilling So Eustratius tells us expressly So quietly did the good Man live in his Monastery at Amasea so far from heading a Schism as an Anti-patriarch that the Emperors did not know whether he was willing to be restor'd or not And thus is confirm'd what the Author of the Baroccian Treatise asserts That Eutychius did not separate from John 's Communion We must not bid Farewell to our Patriarch Eutychius till we have clear'd him from a Charge and Accusation which Dr. Crakanthorp has laid against him The Doctor in his Treatise concerning the Emperor Iustinian in which he endeavours to clear that Emperor from the Imputation of Heresie against Cardinal Baronius would needs perswade us That the Patriarch Eutychius was not deposed by Iustinian because he refused to subscribe to the Doctrine of the Aphthartodocetae but for being an Origenian Heretick That Eutychius had written a Book concerning the Resurrection in which he contended that our Bodies after the Resurrection will not be properly Flesh and Blood but Aereal and Impalpable the Doctor proves from the Testimony of Pope Gregory the Great who says That he himself disputed against him If this were the reason of Eutychius's being expell'd then all that we have alleged concerning the Church's acknowleging his Successor Iohn will be of no force because Eutychius was a Heretick and consequently his Expulsion just whatsoever that Authority was by which he was expell'd I am therefore concern'd to confute this pretended Reason And 1. I answer That the Book which Eutychius publish'd concerning the Resurrection was so far from being publish'd before the time of his Expulsion that it was not publish'd till after his Restauration This plainly appears from what Pope Gregory says He tells us that when he resided at Constantinople as Legate from Pope Pelagius in the Reign of the Emperor Tiberius he had a great Dispute with the Patriarch Eutychius about that Subject and Tiberius having heard the Arguments of both sides was about to condemn the Patriarch's Book to be burnt Which had been done says he had not the Patriarch died If Eutychius had been expell'd by Iustinian for that Opinion which he then maintain'd it cannot be suppos'd but that Pope Gregory would have given an account of it 2. That Eutychius was deposed by Iustinian because he refused to subscribe to the Doctrine of the Aphthartodocetae is unanimously asserted by all the Greek Authors who have mention'd the Reason of his Deprivation by the Author of the Synodicon Glycas Zonaras Theophanes Ioel Nicephorus Callisti and Eustratius the Writer of his Life Neither can it be supposed that Eustratius assign'd a false Reason that so he might salve his Reputation and conceal his Opinions concerning the Resurrection for had he beed deposed for maintaining any Heretical Opinion there was no one but must have known it and Eustratius would never have been so impudent as to give a false Reason before that great Congregation to whom he spoke his Oration Neither does he conceal the Imputation which was by some fixt upon him concerning the Resurrection After an account given of his Death he takes an accasion to speak of that Imputation and he says it was occasion'd by his being not rightly understood To this I add That it plainly appears from Evagrius who liv'd and flourish'd at that time that the Emperor Iustinian did just before his death endeavour to advance the Doctrine of the Aphthartodocetae and publish'd a Decree concerning it requiring the Bishops to subscribe to it who generally answer'd as he tells us that they would follow the Example of Anastasius Patriarch of Antioch who says he could never be perswaded to subscribe and had therefore been deposed if the Emperor had not suddenly died 'T is a weak and injudicious Plea that of Crakanthorp that Evagrius is guilty of several Errors For let it be granted that he is and what Historian is not yet how could he erre in a thing of that nature Since he flourish'd at that time and was within a few years after Assessor to Anastasius's Successor since he flourish'd at Antioch when Anastasius himself was Patriarch How could he be mistaken in such a thing as that He intimates that he had read the Speech which Anastasius had composed and spoken to the People of Antioch when he understood that the Emperor design'd to banish him And he tells us that Anastasius wrote Epistles concerning the Emperors Doctrine to the Monks of Syria who had desired to know his Judgment Among many other things that may be added I shall onely mention that as has been already observ'd in the foregoing Chapter there is extant in the Tomes of the Councils an Epistle from Nicetius Bishop of Trier to the Emperor Iustinian concerning his Lapse And in that Epistle Nicetius mentions that the Emperor had for the Advance of his Erroneous Doctrine banish'd certain Bishops alluding plainly to the Patriarch Eutychius's Expulsion Dr. Crakanthorp finding that the Life of Eutychius made directly against his Opinion concerning the Emperor Iustinian his never falling into Heresie endeavours to prove that that Life was not written by one that liv'd at that time but forged by some late Monk and of this Opinion is one of the Answerers of the Baroccian Treatise he whose words I but now produced convinced by Crakanthorp's Arguments I need not oppose this Opinion that so it may be proved that Iustinian fell into Heresie and that Eutychius was deposed for refusing to subscribe to that Heresie for these things I have sufficiently demonstrated from the concurrent Testimonies of other Writers But because I have produced the Authority of that Life for several other things which cannot be proved from other Authors I am therefore obliged to clear the Authority of it from the Objections alleged against it The chief Argument brought against it by Crakanthorp is its making Eutychius to continue above 12 Years in Banishment whereas it appears says he
Argument proposed by Crakanthorp that he could not find the Life of Eutychius any where but in Surius who he thinks ought not to be trusted I onely observe that as it is generally receiv'd as genuine by the Learned so it carries with it as clear and manifest Characters of Genuineness as any Life extant Concerning the Author of it I have this to add That he was the same with that Eustratius whom Photius entitles Presbyter of the Great Church of Constantinople and whose Treatise concerning the state of the Dead he mentions which Treatise is now extant published by L. Allatius That he was the same I gather from hence that Eustratius the Presbyter who wrote of the State of the Dead not onely discovers as the Worthy and Learned Dr. Cave has observed that he lived in the time of the Patriarch Eutychius but expresses likewise a singular Affection and Veneration for him The geat Eutychius Archbishop of Constantinople that Holy and by me ever-to-be honour'd Person CHAP. XI S. Anastasius Senior Patriarch of Antioch being deposed without any Synod by the Emperor Justin Iunior tho' he never resign'd yet his Successor Gregory is own'd by all the Church He continued Patriarch till his Death for the space of 23 Years the old Patriarch Anastasius being all the while living Four Saints among those that lived at that time and communicated freely with him S. Symeon Stylites Iunior Pope Gregory the Great S. Eulogius Patriarch of Alexandria S. John Nesteutes Patriarch of Constantinople Pope Gregory communicates with him as Patriarch of Antioch tho' at the same time he declares Anastasius's Deprivation to be invalid and looks upon Anastasius to be the rightfull Patriarch S. Anastasius tho' deposed by the Lay-power and tho' he had never given up his Right yet never left the Communion of the Church I Have mention'd in the foregoing Chapter that Anastasius the Patriarch of Antioch was deposed by the Emperour Iustin the Younger It was done in the fifth Year of Iustin's Reign in the Year of Christ 570. And that it was done barely by the Emperour's Autority without any Synod may easily be gather'd from the account which Evagrius gives of it Iustin says he turn'd Anastasius out of the See of Antioch objecting against him that he had profusely squander'd away the sacred Money upon things not necessary and that he had likewise spoken reproachfully of him that being ask'd why he was so profuse of the sacred Money he answer'd down-right That therefore he had done it that it might not be took away by Justin that common Plague Now it was said that therefore Justin had a spite against Anastasius because when he demanded a summ of Money of him when promoted to the Bishoprick he refused to give it him There were besides the above-mention'd some other things objected against him by some that were willing as we may suppose to gratifie the Emperour in his design The same may be gather'd from the account we have in Theophanes That he was thrust out of his See through the Emperor Justin 's displeasure because he had spoken sharply against John Patriarch of Constantinople who had ordain'd John Patriarch of Alexandria and likewise against John of Alexandria himself Agreeably to this Iohannes Diaconus tells us that he was deposed Potestatibus And Pope Gregory the Great intimates the same thing when he says he was made Patriarch by God but deposed voluntate hominum Tho' such were his Deprivation and tho' as will by and by appear he never gave up his Right and tho' he was a great and admired Bishop of that Age so highly esteem'd and rever'd by all the Bishops of the Catholick Church as that when the Emperor Iustinian had sent about to all Bishops and requir'd 'em to subscribe to his new-fangled Heresie they all unanimously replied That they would follow the Example of Anastasius of Antioch Tho I say he was so great and admired a Person yet 1. I observe that there is not the least mention in any Author of any disturbance in the Church occasion'd by his Deprivation 2. It is certain that Gregory Abbot of Mount Sinai who succeeded him continued Patriarch of Antioch no less than 23 or 24 Years and that too tho' Anastasius was all that while living and was never deprived but died possess'd of the See And after his Death Anastasius was agen restor'd Nicephorus the Patriarch of Constantinople assigns him 24 Years Evagrius 23. 3. It appears from Evagrius that Gregory who accepted of his See was a Person of extraordinary Worth And from thence it appears That the greatest and the worthiest Men did not think it unlawfull or a disparagement to accept of the See of a Bishop deposed by the Lay-power 4. It appears likewise from Evagrius That he was not onely receiv'd as Bishop of Antioch but was highly beloved and honour'd Let us hear what Evagrius says After Anastasius says he Gregory was preferr'd to the Episcopal Throne whose glory according to the Poet is spread far and near He was for Vnderstanding and Vertue and all Accomplishments a very extraordinary Person and in any thing he undertook of an unconquerable Resolution fearless and undaunted and never yielding in any ill or unreasonable thing to the Supreme Powers So liberal and magnificent he was that as often as he came abroad a vast number of Persons besides his own proper Attendants were wont to wait on him And as soon as any perceiv'd him or heard that he was a coming they immediately flock'd in to attend him And so highly was he honour'd that the Honour which is usually paid to the Emperors themselves was less than that which was paid to him Evagrius adds much more in his praise and tells us That he was admired not onely by the Christian but likewise by the Persian Emperors c. He tells us likewise how by his great Autority he appeas'd a whole Army that mutinied against their Commanders In his Speech to that Army I am says he by the Grace of God a Bishop and have the power of binding and loosing both in Heaven and in Earth Evagrius adds That he appeased God by Prayers and Supplications This Action of the Patriarch Gregory is recorded likewise by another Historian of that Age Theophylactus Simocattes Philippicus says he was receiv'd by the Army Gregory the then Archbishop of Antioch having reconciled it to him 5. To this Patriarch our Historian Evagrius was himself Assessor or Chancellor Tho' it appears by that great Character which he gives the former Patriarch Anastasius that he highly honour'd and esteem'd him yet he readily acknowleges the present Possessor and acts as Assessor or Chancellor under him as the true Patriarch There was no one doubted of the lawfulness of it 6. He was likewise acknowleg'd by S. Symeon Stylites the latter of that name as appears from Evagrius who speaks of a Prophecy which
the Emperor raged with a great fury against his Name-sake the Patriarch and having found out certain Monks Clergymen and Laicks who were the Patriarch's intimate Friends he got 'em to allege against him that they had heard him speak against him to Podomagulus or Podopagurus a great Man whom the Emperor had just before put to death as accused of conspiring against him and sent 'em to the Patriarch's Palace there to witness it to his Face and the Patriarch denying it he made 'em swear by the Holy Cross that they had heard the Patriarch speak thus and thus reproachfully of him and sent some to seal up the Gate of his Palace and took him and banish'd him to Hieria and after that to the Prince's Island Theophanes adds That on the Sixteenth of November following the Emperor made Nicetas an Eunuch Patriarch in Constantine's room He further adds That on the 16 th of October next after that he sent for Constantine from the Prince's Island and having so scourg'd him as that he was not able to stand he commanded him to be carried into the Great Church and all the People of the City being gather'd together there was a Libel read publickly containing the Heads of all the Accusations that were brought against him and at the reading of every Accusation the Secretary who read it and stood by him struck him on the Face the Patriarch Nicetas sitting there in his Throne by him and seeing all that was done Then they went up into the Pulpit and the Patriarch Nicetas took the Libel and commanded some Bishops to take away his Patriarchal Cope from him and anathematiz'd him So giving him the nick-name of Scotiopsis they made him go out of the Church backward After this Relation Theophanes gives an account of his being put to death and how very inhumanely and barbarously they used him It appears from this exact and particular account that Constantine was never Synodically tried and condemned and that Nicetas was made Patriarch before he was condemn'd in the great Church and that when he was there condemn'd and deposed or degraded he was deposed or degraded by Nicetas himself who had been put into his place It likewise appears that he had never given up his Right since he still wore his Patriarchal Cope and was there deprived of it Nicephorus the Patriarch gives the same account of the Matter tho' not so particularly The Emperor says he suborn'd some of the Patriarch Constantine 's Acquaintance to depose upon Oath that they had heard him speak of the Conspiracy of Antiochus and Theophylactus They had been condemn'd together with Podopagurus And immediately sent him away as a banish'd Man to Hieria an Imperial Palace in Asia over against Constantinople and created Nicetas the Presbyter of the Church of the Apostles an Eunuch Patriarch All these things were done in the Month of August Indict 4. Not long after he sent for Constantine and commanded him to be carried to the Church and together with him he sent one of his own Secretaries with Accusations against him which the Secretary read before all the people there gather'd together striking him on the Cheek at the reading of every Accusation And then they went up into the Pulpit and deposed him the new Patriarch reading the Accusations at the Altar To the same purpose Zonaras Tho' such were the Circumstances of Nicetas's Promotion yet of any disturbance in the Church occasion'd by it not a Syllable in any Author He was readily own'd by all the Orthodox i. e. the Iconoclasts and govern'd no less than Fourteen Years as appears from Theophanes and Nicephorus Callisti The Patriarch Nicephorus in his Chronology allows him Fifteen Years If you find him call'd by any Author a Pseudo-Patriarch or the like it is onely by such as being themselves the Worshippers of Images accounted him so likewise his Predecessor himself a Heretick and on that account no true Patriarch CHAP. XIV An Account of the Schism between Photius and Ignatius Patriarchs of Constantinople Photius who was put into Ignatius's place when deposed by the Emperor no such Person as his Enemies report him By how great a Party he was receiv'd The reason why some refused to acknowlege him was not so much because he was so constituted as because he was a Neophytus and was besides ordain'd by a Bishop Excommunicated and in their Iudgments stood himself Excommunicated at that time Ignatius professes that if Photius had been one of the Church i. e. if he had not been an Excommunicated Person at the time of his Consecration he would willingly have yielded to him Ignatius values the Councils that condemn'd him no more than he did the Lay power The Vindicator in an Error concerning that Matter His Errors concerning the Council call'd the First and Second A New account of the reason of that Title His Error concerning the Greatness of the Synod of Rome call'd by P. Nicholas against Photius Photius after he was receiv'd by the Church and confirmed by a general Council is deposed by the bare Autority of the Emperor Leo yet his Successor Stephen is receiv'd by the Church IT appears from what has been said in the foregoing Chapters that the Doctrine which we maintain is grounded on the earliest Antiquity and confirm'd by the Practice of the Church in the first 400 Years after the Emperors became Christian. We are now fallen into the Dregs of time says one of our Answerers speaking of the Seventh and the following Centuries years of Superstition Idolatry Dot age and Disorder and therefore tho' the Instances produced out of this Age were truly reported and pertinent to the Purpose they would not be fit Examples for us to follow Had our Author known that the Ages of which he gives this Character were the Ages that afford his Party their most considerable in themselves inconsiderable Precedents we should not I suppose have found him so ingenuous in his Confession and free of his Characters We are now fallen into the Dregs of time 'T is true and no wonder if the Spirit of Antiquity was so far lost as that some few Instances may be found in these times agreeable to the practice of our Adversaries But this is confess'd by them themselves that the Examples of these lower Ages that do not agree with the Practice of the former are not fit Examples for us to follow In the Year 858. there broke out a Schism at Constantinople between Ignatius deposed and Photius who was constituted in his place That the Reader may have a full and perfect view of all this Concern I will first present him with a short Historical and Chronological Account of the chief Transactions Secondly I will shew what manner of Man Photius was who accepted of Ignatius's See that he was a vertuous and pious Man Thirdly I will shew by how great and numerous a Party he was receiv'd Fourthly That they that separated from him did not
Eugenius were corrupted by Photius when sent by the Pope to Constantinople about another Business That after that Photius forged a Paper in the Names of Ignatius and his Adherents in which the Pope was desired to receive him On this account says he the Pope sent to Constantinople another Legate Peter who together with Paul and Eugenius proclaim'd him receiv'd by the Pope To all this I add That our Patriarch Photius has all along to this time been own'd by the Greek Church to have been a true Patriarch of Constantinople even before Ignatius's Death when he was Patriarch the first time This is manifest from hence that the above-mention'd Council which condemn'd all the Synods that were called against Photius as unjust is commonly own'd by the Greeks and called the 8 th General Council and that which the Latins are wont to call by that Title that in which Photius was condemned the Greeks take no notice of It appears moreover from hence That the Canons which were made by the Photian Council Entituled The First and Second by which Ignatius was condemned have been all along received by the Church as good Ecclesiastical Law and as such are illustrated with the Comments of the Greek Canonists Zonaras Balsamon c. and the Council it self is honoured with the Title of the holy and great Constantinopolitan Council First and Second It appears from what hath been said tho' it should be granted that the Ignatians refused to own Photius for this reason only because Ignatius was uncanonically deposed yet this Example would make more for us than for our Adversaries I come now in the Fourth place to shew That that was not the only Reason that Ignatius and his Adherents lookt upon Photius to be on other Accounts uncapable of being a true Patriarch and that they allege other Reasons for their separating from him Which are these 1. That he was a Neophytus that he was ordain'd Patriarch contrary to the Canons having gone through all the several Degrees in Six days time This is every where urged against him as a Reason why he ought not to be receiv'd as Patriarch by P. Nicholas in his Epistles who insists very largely upon it by the Synod of Rome under the other Roman Synod under P. Hadrian by the General Council of Constantinople by which he was condemned by the Patriarch Ignatius himself before the Council of Constantinople called First and Second and by Stylianus Neocaesariensis Anastasius Bibliothecarius in his Life of P. Nicholas where he mentions this Schism gives us only this Reason for it by which it appears that he lookt upon it to be at least the chief Reason if not the only One. In the holy Constantinopolitan Church says he there was a Schism viz. because the most reverend Patriarch Ignatius being ejected they substituted Photius a Lay-man ordained suddenly contrary to the Prescript of the Canons 2. That he was ordain'd by a Person not capable of Ordaining any one viz. Gregory Archbishop of Syracuse who say they was at that time deposed and stood Excommunicate and actually engaged in a Schism This Gregory of Syracuse had been first Deposed and Excommunicated by Benedict III. of Rome and a Synod so some say more truly by Pope Leo IV. and afterwards by Pope Benedict and being at Constantinople when Ignatius was first made Patriarch Ignatius refused to permit him to be present at his Consecration On that account he engaged in a Schism against him and was Excommunicated likewise by him When Ignatius was deposed the Synod that Elected Photius took off his Excommunication and restored him and all that were engaged with him to the Church but this Absolution Ignatius and his Party lookt upon as perfectly Null and consequently Photius was in their Judgment no Bishop This Reason why he ought not to be receiv'd as a Patriarch or Bishop is alleged by Pope Nicholas and very largely insisted on he alleges that Gregory standing thus Excommunicated Photius's Head was rather wounded than consecrated by that Imposition of hands and denies that he could be a Bishop being so ordain'd It is also urged by the Synod of Rome call'd by Pope Nicholas in its Decrees against Photius and by Stylianus Neocaesariensis It was alleged by Ignatius himself to the Council by which he was tried and condemn'd 3. That Photius himself was engaged in a Schism against Ignatius before he was ordain'd together with Gregory of Syracuse and together with him excommunicated by Ignatius This is urged as another Reason why he ought not to be own'd as a Bishop by Pope Nicholas and Ignatius himself and Metrophanes Bishop of Smyrna in the Eighth General Council and by the Author of the Appendix to the Greek Acts of that Council And this is the first Objection made against him in the Decrees of Pope Nicholas's Synod To all this I add and this I desire our Adversaries would be pleas'd to take special notice of That Ignatius when he was tried by the great Council of Constantinople freely professed before the Council That if Photius had not been out of the Church i. e. if he had not been a Schismatick and Excommunicate when he was made Patriarch he would not have opposed him but would willingly have pselded to him But an alien said he from Christ how shall I make a Pastor of the Sheep of Christ That Ignatius made this Delaration before that Council he himself witnesses or what is the same thing his Legate Theognostus for him in his case presented to Pope Nicholas And by its being there mention'd it appears he was still of that mind It is likewise attested by the Author of the Epistle entituled An Epistle of Metrophanes the Metropolite of Smyrna to Manuel Patricius That at that time that Photius was consecrated Patriarch the deposed Patriarch Ignatius gave his free consent that another should be chosen in his place provided he were of the Church not ingag'd in a Schism or Excommunicate Photius says that Author whilst he was a Lay-man separated himself from the Church and was excommunicated And whilst he was under those Circumstances he was nominated Patriarch by Bardas He then adds as has been already observ'd That the Bishops rejected him and pitched on three others but all save five were at last brought over to Photius Now says he when we perceived that the generality of the Bishops were corrupted we thought fit he either was or pretends to have been one of those five to restore him to the Church and to the Patriarch's Communion that we might not transgress the Patriarch's Commands who had commanded that we should chuse such a one Patriarch as was a Member of the Church It is natural for Readers to desire Variety and 't is irksome to be long on one Subject And they that are weary of being so long in the same Company may here if they please take
Church's Submission to Bishops put into the places of others deposed by the Secular Power I have brought it down from the first High-priest that ever was deposed by the Secular Power i. e. from the Reign of King Solomon to these very times and have shewed That the Behaviour of the Iews under their High-priests and of the Antient Christians under their Bishops was agreeable to the present Practice of our Church To make this History the more complete I shall now shew That the same was the general Practice of the Antients in respect to Bishops put into the places of others unjustly and uncanonically deposed by Synods where the Secular Power concurr'd as executing the Sentence of the Bishops I say where the Secular Power concurred in executing the Sentence of the Bishops for whatever the Vindicator and others are pleas'd to tell us concerning Synodical Deprivations it is easie to shew That the Antients never regarded the Decree or Sentence of an Vncanonical Synod if the Civil Governour did not force 'em to submit by taking upon him to excuse the sentence It is not every Synod that has power by the Canons of the Church to depose a Bishop and the Sentence of an Vncanonical Synod is by the Canons as invalid as if it were no Synod at all In the Fifth Canon of the General Council of Nice there is a plain Intimation that the Affairs of every Province ought to be managed by the Bishops of the respective Provinces and by the Second Can. of the General Council of Constantinople 't is expressly ordain'd That no Metropolitan should go out of his own District to concern himself in the Affairs of another District except in a General Council So when Theophilus Patriarch of Alexandria was accused to the Emperor Arcadius of certain great Crimes and the Emperor commanded him to make his Appearance at Constantinople to be tryed there by S. Chrysostom Patriarch of Constantinople he sent S. Chrysostom a Letter in which he alleged That he could not be Iudge of his Cause that the Affairs of every Province ought to be managed only by the Bishops of the respective Province And S. Chrysostom tells P. Innocent that when Theophilus came to Constantinople and the Emperor commanded him to call him before him as his Iudge he refused to do it because he knew that by the Canons he could not do it 'T was contrary to this Law of the Church that S. Chrysostom himself was deposed and that too by Theophilus himself who had pleaded that Law The Circumstances of S. Chrysostom's Deprivation were these Theophilus being at Constantinople instead of being judged by S. Chrysostom was encouraged by S. Chrysostom's Enemies particularly by the Empress Eudoxia to summon Him before him and to Depose him He packs a Synod consisting of Twenty nine Bishops of Egypt whom he brought with him and Seven others of other Countries and several malicious Accusations being preferred against him by his Enemies cites him to appear before he himself had cleared himself from the Crimes charged upon him which was contrary to all Canons and Laws S. Chrysostom sends him word that he was ready to appear before a lawful and impartial Synod but as for him he could not own him as his Judge because he was his profess'd Enemy had already drawn oft a part of his People from his Communion and had no Autority to sit as a Iudge out of his own District and besides was himself obnoxious Notwithstanding all this Theophilus and the Bishops that were with him pass upon him the Sentence of Deprivation And pursuant to that Sentence he is carried away from Constantinople but there being a great Tumult among the People by whom he was exceedingly admired he is presently recalled by the Emperor's Command and the Suffrages of Thirty Bishops He desires the Emperor to call a General Council that his Cause might be heard Theophilus flees away to Alexandria together with most of his Bishops But after a little time S. Chrysostom's Enemies prevail again They gather a Synod at Constantinople and depose him by a Canon of the Synod of Antioch for presuming to act as a Bishop after he had been deposed by a Synod He 's accordingly expell'd a Second time tho' there were present at that time at Constantinople no less than Forty Bishops that declared against those Proceedings among whom there were Seven Metropolitans He was carried away into Banishment in which he died Three years and Three Months after his Expulsion A little while after Arfacius Brother to Nectarius his Predecessor was ordain'd his Successor who died November 11. 405. after he had been Patriarch somewhat above a Year For S. Chrysostom was deposed Iune 20.404 To him succeeded Atticus S. Chrysostom being still living Such were the Circumstances of that great Man's Deprivation That the Emperor was not at all concern'd in it any otherwise than as he executed the Sentence of the Bishops he himself attests in his Epistle to P. Innocent And that he himself lookt upon it as absolutely invalid is notorious Let us now see what the Consequences were what was his Behaviour and what the Behaviour of the Church in relation to his Successors 1. It is to be observed that tho' he was so injuriously and provokingly dealt with tho' he accounted all the Proceedings against him perfectly invalid yet before he was carried away from Constantinople he absolutely declar'd against all Separation on his Account This appears from what has been already observ'd in the Prefaces to the Baroccian Treatise When he expected to be deposed Pray for me my Brethren says he to the Bishops his Friends and if you love Christ let no one leave the Church on my Account And so you may obtain Mercy When one of the Bishops complain'd of the loss the Church would have in his Deprivation It suffices Brother says he speak no more but as I said leave not your Churches For as the Gift of Preaching did not begin with me so neither will it end with me Again he charges 'em to continue in Communion with those that deposed him that they might not rend the Church When he was just agoing out of his Church to be led away into Exile he thus addrest himself to the Deaconnesses who were wont to attend there Come hither says he my Daughters and hear me I am I perceive to be your Patriarch no longer I have finish'd my Course and perhaps my Face you will never see any more This is that which I exhort you to do Let no one of you be drawn off from the Good-will to the Church which you have hitherto had And whoever shall be ordain'd Patriarch in my stead without his own seeking it by the Consent of all to him submit your Heads to receive his Blessing as to my self for the Church cannot be without a Bishop And by doing so you may obtain Mercy Remember me in your Prayers We
the Heretical Vsurper Basiliscus but because he was a Heretick and a Parricide § 4. Jo. Talaias the Orthodox Patriarch of Alexandria being deposed by the bare Autority of the Emperour Zeno though he still laid claim to the See yet Petrus Mongus his Successor is acknowleged by all that accounted him Orthodox by Acacius and Fravitas Patriarchs of Constantinople by Martyrius Patriarch of Jerusalem by almost all the Bishops of the Eastern Church That they who refused to communicate with Mongus viz. the Western Bishops the Bishops of Dardania c. did it only because they thought him a Heretick That Euphemius Patriarch of Constantinople communicated with him till he found him to be a Heretick then forsook his Communion Pope Simplicius when he heard that Talaias was to be deposed was well enough satisfied till he understood that Mongus whom he accounted a Heretick was design'd for his Successor Whether Orthodox Bishops unjustly ejected by the Emperor be restor'd or new Orthodox Bishops be created he values not he only desires that they that are made Bishops should be Orthodox Pope Felix III. not at all concern'd for Talaias's being deprived without a Synod only dislikes that one whom he accounted a Heretick was constituted in his place § 5. Calendion Patriarch of Antioch being deposed by the Emperor Zeno without any Synod the Orthodox Bishops viz. Pope Felix III. Quintianus Asculanus Justinus Siculus Acacius Constantinopolitanus Antheon Arsinoites Faustus Apolloniates Pamphilus Abydensis Asclepiades of Trallium c. refuse to communicate with his Successor Petrus Gnapheus only because he was a Heretick take no notice of his being constituted in the room of one Unsynodically deposed and are ready to communicate with him as a true Patriarch of Antioch if he will but forsake his Heresy Page 57. CHAP. VI. Macedonius Patriarch of Constantinople being violently Deposed by the Heretical Emperor Anastasius his Successor Timotheus is acknowleged by all that accounted him Orthodox though at the same time they profess'd that the Deprivation of Macedonius was unjust and could never be induced by any Terrors to subscribe to it viz. by Flavianus Patriarch of Antioch Elias Patriarch of Jerusalem the Abbot of the Monastery of Studium the Orthodox People of Constantinople by the great Abbots of Palaestine S. Sabas and S. Theodosius and by all Palaestine in general at that time exceedingly flourishing for its zealous Profession of the Orthodox Faith The Calumnies of the Vindicator concerning the Apostacy of the Patriarchs Flavianus and Elias confuted Timotheus not known to them to be a Heretick when they communicated with him They are Honoured by the Church as Saints Page 70. CHAP. VII Flavianus Patriarch of Antioch being deposed by the Emperor Anastasius his Successor Severus is rejected by the Orthodox only because he was a Heretick Elias Patriarch of Jerusalem being violently deposed by the said Emperor his Successor John is immediately acknowleged by all the People though at the same time they hated him by the whole Church of Palaestine particularly the two great Abbots S. Sabas and S. Theodosius so famous for their Vndauntedness and Sanctity by Johannes Cappadox Patriarch of Constantinople and all the Greek Church by all the whole Church ever since those Tunes The Testimony of Photius Patriarch of Constantinople out of a Manuscript The old Patriarch Elias though so Tyrannically Deprived for adhering to the Orthodox Faith continues however to communicate with those who acknowleged his Successor Page 81. CHAP. VIII S. Silverius Bishop of Rome being violently deposed by Belisarius the Emperor Justinian's General his Successor Vigilius though put into his place so depriv'd though constituted by the bare Autority of Belisarius against the consent of the Clergy and though Silverius never gave up his Right is own'd and receiv'd by the 5th General Council and by all the Church as a true Pope He was generally own'd whilst Silverius himself was living Baronius's conjecture concerning his being again ordain'd after Silverius's Death confuted though for some time he communicated with Hereticks yet it was not known to the Orthodox who communicated with him Page 90. CHAP. IX Macarius Patriarch of Jerusalem being deposed by the Emperour Justinian his Successor Eustochius is own'd as a true Patriarch by the Fifth General Council and the whole Catholick Church After some time Eustochius himself is deposed by the Emperour and Macarius being restored is received by the Church According to our Adversaries Principles either Eustochius or Macarius after his Restauration was no true Patriarch yet the Church receiv'd both Page 97. CHAP. X. Eutychius Patriarch of Constantinople being violently deposed by the Emp. Justinian for refusing to subscribe to his Heresie John sirnamed Scholasticus is made Patriarch in his room After John was consecrated Patriarch Eutychius was condemned by an Assembly that consisted as well of Lay Lords as Bishops not only of Ecclesiasticks as the Vindicator contends He actually lays claim to the See despises the Sentence of his Iudges as null and invalid because they proceeded unjustly and uncanonically against him and Excommunicates them Notwithstanding all this his Successor because he prov'd Orthodox was receiv'd and own'd by all the Church as a true Patriarch He continu'd in the See near 13 years near 12 years under Justin the Younger an Orthodox Emp. He is own'd by the Church of Constantinople tho' at the same time Eutychius was exceedingly belov'd John an Orthodox Patriarch of Alexandria is consecrated by him For what reason Anastasius Patriarch of Antioch reprov'd the Patriarch of Alexandria for being ordain'd by him Anastasius did not refuse to communicate with him He is Honour'd by the Patriarch Photius with the Title of Saint Tho' Eutychius lookt upon his Deprivation as absolutely invalid and tho' he never resign'd but accounted himself still the rightful Patriarch yet he liv'd quietly and never endeavour'd to make a Division in the Church Dr. Crakanthorp's Opinion that Eutychius was deposed for being a Heretick confuted The Authority of the Life of Eutychius often quoted in this Chapter vindicated against the same Author Page 101. CHAP. XI S. Anastasius Senior Patriarch of Antioch being deposed without any Synod by the Emperor Justin Iunior tho' he never resign'd yet his Successor Gregory is own'd by all the Church He continued Patriarch till his Death for the space of 23 Years the old Patriarch Anastasius being all the while living Four Saints among those that lived at that time and communicated freely with him S. Symeon Stylites Iunior Pope Gregory the Great S. Eulogius Patriarch of Alexandria S. John Nesteutes Patriarch of Constantinople Pope Gregory communicates with him as Patriarch of Antioch tho' at the same time he declares Anastasius's Deprivation to be invalid and looks upon Anastasius to be the rightfull Patriarch S. Anastasius though deposed by the Lay-power and though he had never given up his Right yet never left the Communion of the Church Page 121. CHAP. XII S. Martin Pope of Rome being deposed without any Synod