Mothers Marriage which made immediately the breach between his Father and the Patriarch Not only so Nicholas also Christened him so that as yet he was in Possession of the Patriarchal Throne This it seems he condescended to on condition the Marriage should not go on However within three days after Thomas a Presbyter performed the Solemnity and was thereupon Excommunicated by the Patriarch Constantine was Christened on the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 our Epiphany Jan. 6. So his Mother Zoes Marriage was on the 9th of the same January That immediately caused the breach and from that time forward the Emperor formed his Party for depriving the Patriarch And Cedrenus tells us that they did it on the beginning of February The anonymous Continuator of Theophanes and Leo Grammaticus are more particular yet in fixing it to the first day of that Month. These are more to be regarded than Baronius's Author Joannes Curopalates who would have it to have been on the beginning of January Constantine was Crowned on Pentecost and then Euthymius officiated thence is appears that Nicholas was dispossessed before Pentecost But Constantine could not have been Baptized nor Crowned before the year 906. At his Uncle Alexander's death he was seven years old as we are assured by the Continuator of Theophanes and by Leo Grammaticus the best Authors of those times Alexander died on June the 6th the first day of the week and the first Indiction as the same Authors tell us These Notes shew it could not have been the year 912. as Baronius would have it but that it must have been on the year following 913. So also it is agreed that he was thirteen years old when his Father-in-Law Romanus Lacapenus got to be joyned in the Government with him This appears by Leo Grammaticus to have been in that year wherein the Feast of the Annunciation March the 25th fell on the 5th day of the week which must have been on the year 919. The same appears from the death of Constantine in the year of the World 6468. Indict 3. Novemb. 9. All these Notes concur in the year 959. not in the year 960. wherein it is placed by Baronius This was in the 54th year of his Reign or Life for there is no great difference between them And this number is made up of the three several Periods of his Reign 13 wherein he Reigned with his Father and Vncle and Mother 26 wherein Romanus was joyned with him and 15 more after the Deposition of Romanus These numbers reckoned backward from the year now mentioned can go no farther than the year 906. wherein therefore Nicholas must have been deprived Nicholas himself tells us that it was in the Pontificate of Sergius which is not by any means reconcilable with the Chronology of Baronius This by the way for the time of this Example 40. However it does not appear that Leo acted herein only by his Secular Authority If there be any heed to be given to Eutychius he tells us of something like a Synod that sided with the Emperor against the Patriarch He says the Emperor had with him Legates from the Patriarchal Sees to whom were joyned several of the Bishops then in Constantinople who were for his Marriage These were somewhat more than the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And whether they were enough or no to secure the Emperor and his Priest from the Censure of the Patriarch and for continuing them in Communion yet certainly they had been sufficient according to the Customs of those Ages for the Deprivation of a Patriarch if there had not been particular reasons to suspect whether in a Question so much disputed among the Bishops as that was the Majority would think themselves obliged to be concluded by them And it was upon their joyning with the Emperor that as Eutychius tells us the Deprivation followed though Eutychius be not indeed express in telling us whether they were particularly concerned in the Deprivation But neither have we reason to doubt but that the Emperor would rather choose to deprive him Synodically than otherwise if for no other reason at least for this that he might therefore clear himself from the odium of making himself a Judge in his own Cause The rather so because we know he endeavoured to transact the Dispute amicably and with due deference to the Ecclesiastical Authority which shews him unwilling to use his Power if he could have avoided it and because withall he had a Synod ready convened who were likely enough to second him in it For why should we suspect them unwilling to concur in the Deprivation when they had concurred in allowing the Marriage that had occasioned it And there are circumstances which confirm the likelihood of a Synodical Deprivation independently on the Authority of Eutychius Nicholas himself owns the concurrence of Pope Sergius's Legates against him who were for dispencing with the Marriage It seems therefore that Leo had sent for them before the Marriage and the breach occasioned by it otherwise they could not have reached Constantinople before the Deprivation of Nicholas Thus therefore it is certain that at that time there were present the Legates of at least one of the Patriarchal Sees And why should we suspect but that in a Controversy of so great importance when he sent for the Legates of one of the Patriarchal Sees he sent for all the rest But so it was those Legates could only undertake for the sense of those Patriarchal Jurisdictions that were represented by them It is by no means likely that he would neglect the fifth Patriarchal Church to which himself was particularly related In all probability the same time that he sent for the Legates of the Foreign Patriarchs he ordered matters so that upon their arrival they should be met by a Synod of Bishops of his own Dominions that so he might have the sense if not of his own Patriarch at least of his own Patriarchal Church This made an appearance of the Whole Church and of a General Council when he could pretend to the sense of all the Patriarchates and is withall certain that he endeavoured to draw the Bishops of his own Dominions to his Party and that his endeavours were successfull with many of them And this difference of Opinion that was between them was that which occasioned the following Schism Then withall we know that he charged the Patriarch with a Crime as the ground of the Deprivation that was of Lying and Perjury Probably in the agreements made between them before the breach to which it is probable that the Parties concerned had Sworn that the preteâ—ded Violation of those Oaths was that which the Emperor charged with Perjury Thus as there was a Judicatory so we see likely materials to ground a judicial Process And why should we doubt but that as he made this Synod Judge of the Marriage it self so that he also allowed them to pass their judgment on this Canonical Accusation So little
Victor The first thing it concerned him to take care of for settling his Communion with the West was to put out a Confession of his Faith according to the Custome of thaâ—â—ge The rather because of the late suspicion on account of Eutyches who had lately been cleared by Anatolius's Friends This he indeed delayed possibly to see what effect the Letters of Valentinian and Placidia would have with his Emperour Theodosius Nor did Leo receive his Confession till about Easter of the year 451. Before that time it is probable Theodosius had put Chrysaphius to death which obliged Anatolius to take this course when he found the Eutychian Interest declining and that it would be no longer able to support him Yet the first Complaint against him for not doing it is in an Epistle of Leo to Pulcheria bearing date July 20. 450. We should in all likelihood have had earlier ones if Anatolius had succeeded as our Author fancies whilst Flavianus was yet living in the year 449. The best Testimony we have that assures us that Anatolius was preferred under the Consuls of the year 449. is a Fragment of Theodorus Lector preserved in the 2d Nicene Council which Baronius did not think of And particularly it is observed by Zonaras that Dioscorus concerned himself in that which did not belong to him the making of a Bishop of Constantinople But the Reason Zonaras gives why he did so and why he recommended his own Apocrisiarius to the place shews that it must have been after the Death of Flavianus That Author tells us that it was the Fear Dioscorus was in that put him upon it He therefore suggests to Chrysaphius the Author of all these Mischiefs that he would persuade the Emperour to name Anatolius to the Throne of Flavianus hoping thereby to gain two Points as the same Author observes very necessary to his ill Designs One was that Eutyches might be continued in the Constantinopolitane Communion to which he had been restored another was that he might thereby prevent any accurate Enquiry into the Matter of Flavianus Plainly it appears by this Account of the Affair that the Fear Dioscorus was in was that of being called to Account for this Murther which being the Cause must therefore be antecedent to his Interposition for a Successor This is certain it was not proper to interpose for â— Successor till they had first deprived Flavianus And those Bruises being given him at the very time of his Appeal which was immediately upon his Deprivation it thence appears that there were onely three days respite between his deprivation and his death which is by much too short a time to write from Ephesus to Constantinople and to receive a Return so impossible it is that Anatolius could have been set up before the death of Flavianus or that he could have made any Cession to Anatolius as our Collectour fansies He did not withall consider how unlikely it was that Flavianus should pay any Deference to Anatolius at that time on that very account which himself excepts from any Obligation to such deference that of Heresie Anatolius himself was at that time jâ—stly suspicious of it as coming in by Eutychian Interest nor did he till some time after doe any thing to purge himself from that Suspicion Nay we are told that at the very time Dioscorus designed him for the Place he communicated with Eutyches Nay more that Dioscorus recommended him for that very reason that he might thereby continue Eutyches in the Communion to which he had restored him How therefore could Flavianus yield to Anatolius How could our Author if he had done it commend him for it and plead his Fact as a Precedent so contrary to his own Principles Yet if our Author's Observation prove mistaken and Anatolius did not succeed till after Flavianus's Death his whole Reasoning will fail him will at least fail our present Adversaries for obliging wrongfully deprived Bishops to a Cession of their Title to schismatical Usurpers All the ground he has to think Flavianus was then alive when Anatolius was possessed of his Throne is onely Guess not any competent historical Testimony He refers us in the end after this manner to the Acts of that second Ephesine Synod I suppose as we find them still extant in the Council of Chalcedon But there we find nothing concerning the Consecration of Anatolius not so much as whether Dioscorus and the Synod were any ways concerned in it or whether it was done before the Synod was dissolved So far we are from learning thence that he was set up before the death of Flavianus He might think it more to his purpose what he has observed out of the Epistle of Pope Leo to the Emperour Marcianus where that Pope pretends that it was the Orthodoxy of Anatolius no doubt as signified by his Confession of Faith which he had at length received from him that hindred him from enquiring too scrupulously into his Ordination But the delays he used before he sent that Confession made him justly liable to Suspicion together with his Personal Interest in the Eutychians though he had otherwise received no Consecration from them And the uttermost that can be conjectured from hence was that he had received his Orders from their hands not that he received them whilst Flavianus was yet alive much less that Flavianus himself had made any Cession to him on account of his Orthodoxy Thus the Case had not been like ours of a schismatical Invasion of a Right to which another had a better Title but of a Title defective indeed in regard of the Authority from whence it had been derived but not injurious That is it had been a Case like that of Meletius and Catholicks would have been here as much as there divided in their Opinions concerning it If the Council of Chalcedon did not enquire concerning it yet Leo certainly thought he might lawfully have done it when he upbraids his not doing it as a Kindness to Anatolius in his Disputes with him concerning the Canon made in that Council of Chalcedon equalling the See of Constantinople to that of Rome 15. I come now to the Time of Anastasius Dicorus And here our Author has several Examples the first is of Euphemius whom he calls constantly Euthimius both here and in the Summary as also Eutychius and Cedrenus and Metaphrastes do such other Authors as himself and not only they but also the Fathers of the VIIâ—â—â— General Council Act. 6. Nicephorus Callistus does constantly call him â—â—phemius both in his extant History and in his MS. Catalogue of Patriarchs But as little as Anastasius loved this Euphemius upon old accounts yet he durst not depriâ—e him without a Synod no though his immediate Charge against him was a secular Crime that of his being pretended to have favoured the Emperour's Enemies the Isaurians This is like what is now pretended against our present H. Fathers yet it is certain he had a synodical Deprivation So Theodorus
exercised the Abilities of the Writer in teaching him to write truly And indeed it seems to have been the general way of teaching Thus the Authors taught in the ordinary Schools are called Centum cirratorum dictata And hence it is that we have so many Homilies of the Fathers preserved in writing by their Pupils when only spoken by themselves under the name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 5. This therefore is an easie and obvious Account of the Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the address to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nor is it easier in it self than fit to the Persons of those whose Dictates we have in this same MS. Nicephorus tells us himself in his Preface to his History That he had been bred up from a Boy in the Church of St. Sophia This is the exact Character of those young Students who were educated at the Charges of the Church for these Ecclesiastical Services and who were withal the fairest Candidates for these Masterships whenever they fell vacant either by the Death or the farther Promotion of those who possessed them Then it was probably to be expected that after many years Profession they should draw up their Dictates into the form of a continued History as it is most likely all those Historians did who are still known by the Names of Rhetors and Sophists And it is very probable that Nicephorus's History was the last thing performed by him He says himself he was in the 36 th year of his Age when he began it and yet that he was then but young implying plainly that he was old when he finished it and wrote the Dedicatory Epistle to Andronicus It is also probable that Photius who was afterwards Patriarch had been also his Predecessor in this same Office because his Excerpta out of Philostorgius contained in this same MS. are said also to have been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That may perhaps give an account how these Excerpta of Photius came to be inserted among the Dictates of Nicephorus It is not unlikely those larger Excerpta of Photius dictated from Philostorgius had occasioned the loss of Philostorgius himself and that Nicephorus was therefore necessitated to use those Excerpta for his own Text which he was to dictate to his Pupils The Office it self seems to have been far antienter than the time of Photius as appears from the multitude of Rhetors and Sophists before him that were Historians For my part I am apt to think it near as old as the Foundation of the Church of Constantinople by Constantine the Great Socrates the Historian himself has two Collections of Historical Precedents one concerning the different Customs of different Churches to satisfie as it should seem the Scrupulosity of some who scrupled the Lawfulness of Things themselves had not been used to the other of the Translations of Bishops from one See to another occasioned by a Translation made in the 5th Century of Proclus from Cyzicus to Constantinople Hence one might conjecture that as he might have the Materials for his History from the Dictates of his Master Troilus the Sophist so he might have these Collections of Precedents so like to ours from some Cases proposed and resolved by the same Troilus and by him communicated in Dictates to his Pupils This is the rather to be conjectured because Digressions of that kind are not so usual in Histories antienter than this Custom Withall Socrates assures us that Troilus had the Office of Rhetor and that he was not the first but succeeded Silvanus in it This was in the same Church we are mentioning of Constantinople And Valesius has elsewhere observed the Habit proper to that Rhetor answerable to those of our Academical Professors See his Notes on Socr. L.VII. c. 12. It is certain long before that time there were Grammarians Orators Physicians Philosophers maintained on the Publick for the use of Cities and frequently mentioned in the Pandects at least from the time of Marcus Why should it therefore be thought strange that even Constantine himself should make the like provision for Studies necessary for the Church out of the Revenues himself was pleased to settle upon Churches And the like provision we find in the Ecclesiastical Foundations We have several Writers called Grammatici no doubt because they were the Instructers of the Ecclesiastical Grammarians Others we have called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as presiding also over the Ecclesiastical Philosophers It is perhaps a little more difficult to give an account of the use of this Phrase in this MS. upon occasion of producing a Passage of Hegesippus out of Eusebius which is said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But it is not probable that that Custome of the Ecclesiastical Rhetor was near so old as the time of Hegesippus I am sure Eusebius from whom Nicephorus took all he pretends concerning Hegesippus gives him not the least occasion to think so It is particularly certain that Eusebius himself had that Passage not from the Voice but the Writings of Hegesippus I therefore rather believe that this Passage also of Hegesippus was from the Voice of Nicephorus delivered by him in Dictates to his Pupils as many other things in this same MS. are out of Eusebius's Ecclesiastical History only perhaps there might be some particular occasion for dictating this Passage of Hegesippus out of the ordinary course and method of his Readings 6. I am apt therefore to think that the Author of this MS. was the Ecclesiastical Rhetor then in Office when the Schism happened that occasioned it Who that was it is hard now to judge because we have no Catalogues extant of the Successors in that Office And if we had any it could hardly be guessed at till we can first gain some prospect of the time wherein it was written which is the thing into which we are at present enquiring And in order hereunto all that we can infer from this Office of the Author is that he could not live within memory of the latter part of the History of Nicetas Choniates I now add farther that it seems also probable that he did not live at any great distance from the memory of it This I gather because he ascribes the generality of the Orders of his own Time to these five Successors in the time of Isaacius Angelus He does not say so of the Ignatians and Photians nor of the Nicolaitans and Euthymians nor of any of those more distant Patriarchal Factions That therefore he says it of these latest of his Examples the Reason seems to be to let his Auditors thereby understand that he had now brought down his Succession of Precedents so near his own time that the old Clergymen then living though they could not remember those Patriarchs of the time of Isaacius themselves yet they could at least remember that the old Men from whom themselves received their Orders did remember them and did withall profess that they had received their Orders from them This will
Gregoras date it right in the year of the World 6791. Phrantzes and Pachymeres agree with him onely Puchymeres adds that it was the 11th of Scirrophorion This Possinus misunderstands when he thinks it was December but Scirrophorion in the Table of Hesychius where he describes the Signification of those old names of Months in the use of the modern Greeks is August And so the Matter is clear and the other Note given by Pachymeres that it was the Parasceve agrees exactly In that year the 5th Cycle of the Sun the Dominical Letters BA the 13th of August is dominical exactly And so the number of his Years of Reign answer exactly Pâ—â—chymeres says that he began his Reign the 1st of Hecatombaeon that is in Hesychius September not January as Possinus would have it According to which beginning his Reign from Septemb. 1. 1260. he must have reigned 24 years except 20 days as Pachymeres says he did Then Joseph returns and enjoys the Patriarchal Throne for a time and they who had owned him before own him still and communicate with him But the Arseniate so they were called and opposed to the Josephiatâ— return with their old Animosities and would not own him upon account of his former Deposition by Arsenius who was by this time some while dead and could not head them yet they would not communicate with Joseph though he had now no Rival to be opposed to him The Death of Arsenius was the next year after the Vnion of the Council of Lyons on the 30th of Gamelion in the Language of Pachymeres i. e. on the 30th of March 1275. On the other side the Josephiatae pleaded That Arsenius had been canonically deprived in a Synod 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There was also a third Party which charged both these no doubt Joseph then living with new Canonical Accusations This obliged Joseph again to recede both for Peace sake and because indeed he was by this time superannuated for his Charge Thus he left the two Parties engaged and soon after dyes himself The new Emperour Andronicus did not think fit to let the Throne lie vacant at so dangerous a time as the beginning of a new Reign he therefore pitches on Georgius Cyprius an eloquent and learned Man and fit for the Place and immediately invests him with what he could give him the Crosier or Pastoral Staff according to the Custome then generally received for some Ages both in the East and West This enabled him to perform those Patriarchal Offices onely which required not Priesthood as Gregoras expresly observes so carefull they were then of avoiding these present Invasions on that sacred Function The Reason he deferred his Consecration for a time was purposely that he might get him consecrated by Persons no way concerned in the Schism between the Arsenians and Josephians nor in the Vnion attempted by his Father in the Council of Lyons as wisely foreseeing that it would make the whole Consecration questionable in a Time when that whole Design was so unpopular and abominated and a short time afforded him Persons fit for his purpose Within a while the Bishop of Mozula came on an Embassy from his Master the Despote of Aetolia and a little after him another Bishop of Debra in Macedon upon another occasion These I suppose were therefore free from any Contagion of Latine Communion or of the Schism because they had not been liable to his Father's Jurisdiction But he pitched rather on the Bishop of Mozula as being a Suffragan of Constantinople for Mozula was subject to Naupactus Naupactus to Constantinople whereas Debra was under Justiniana prima exempted by Justinian Him therefore Andronicus prevails on first to consecrate a Monk called Germanus Bishop of Heraclia whose antient Right it was to preside in the Consecration of the Patriarch then with the Bishop of Debra to assist the so consecrated Bishop of Heraclia in the following Office when there should be need of them This being done they then proceed to the Consecration of Georgius or Gregorius for the modern Greeks especially do often confound those two Names and being onely a Reader before they first ordain him Deacon then Presbyter before they all joined in making him Patriarch Thus all the Caution was used that could be to prevent the Schism that might follow if his Consecration had been exceptionable in the Opinions then received and all was no more than necessary as did afterwards appear This did not hinder but that his former Familiarity with Becus and Metochita and Meliteniota was objected to him and even that inferior Order of Reader which he did not receive then he was said to have received from Latinizers How true these Objections were is not material to our present Design This at least appears how prone they were then to make them and how little occasions served for those who were so predisposed to receive them The Patriarch thus made Endeavours then were used to reconcile the Arseniatae and the Josephiatae Accordingly an Expedient was thought of suitable to the Superstition of the Age and the Tales formerly invented by the Legendaries On the great Sabbath that is the Saturday before Easter two Libels were received each containing the Sense of the Party that deliver'd it one of the Followers of Arsenius the other of those of Joseph These they cast into a Fire prepared for the purpose expecting according to the Fancies of our Saxon Ancestors concerning their fiery Ordeal that the Libel which was more pleasing to God should escape untouch'd But the Event was that the Fire destroyed them both and the Controversie still remained unresolved whether was in the right However it was thus interpreted that the making Parties was generally displeasing This sufficed at present to unite them among themselves and with their present Patriarch And to sweeten the Arseniatae the more it was granted them that the Body of Arsenius should be honourably received into the City with a solemn Procession The Easter that this Vnion was transacted in could hardly be sooner than that of the year 1285. And the great Sabbath was April 13. according to the Computation of Isaac a Monk near this time that we may not suspect any alteration in the Paschal Account between this time and his But the Vnion then made does not seem to have held long possibly no longer than the time of this George of Cyprus In the time of Nipho of Cyzicus we find the Arseniatae out again how long before we know not and by him reconciled on very honourable Terms and then apostatizing again This was about the year 1315. Thus fickle they were for so many years together after the Death and honourable Amends made to the Memory of their Arsenius However the prospect of Things in our Author's View when he wrote this Discourse I take to have been that of the year 1285. which I have been now describing 4. It gives indeed so clear an Account of the whole Design of this Discourse that we
not call in question the Orders given by Arsacius nor Articus thougâ— Atticus besides his Intrusion was guilty also of what this Author himself owns to have been a Persecution against the Joannites so far he is from condemning even their Separation on this account He says that Aâ—ticus and Sisinius were commended by Pope Caelestine though they both of them derived their Succession from that same Intrusion and though the Bishops of Rome were the most zealous Advocates for St. Chrysostome He says the same Flaw descended to Proclus also St. Chrysostome's Disciple and the Friend and Reconciler of the Joannites Nay to Nestorius also the Heretick who gave occasion for assembling the Synod of Ephesus yet the Synod questioned not eve◠〈◊〉 Orders on account of the original Defect if the Persons who had received them did not partake in his Heresie but that they did not do it he imputes to their not being willing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 plainly implying that in rigour of Justice they might have done it He says that even Severianus of Gabala and Acacius of Beraea the principal Architects of the Injustice to St. Chrysostome though accused to Pope Innocent yet suffered no canonical Censure for it not that they deserved none but that the Pope referred them to the Divine Vengeance Still he confesses that the Case deserved Vengeance from God even where none was attempted by Men. And in the end of the Discourse he says that excepting the Case of Heresie the Church never made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If the Case he reasons against be strictly Justice how can he reason from these Precedents universally without regard to Circumstances that even strict Justice is never to be exercised Yet he could make no universal Observaâ—â—â—â— even in his own Cases that Right was never to be defended He does not observe it concerning St. Chrysostome himself though his Editors observe it for him He could not observe it as the sense of the more numerous Joannites who defended his Right whether he would or no and at last caâ—â—ed the Cause against his Adversaries that his Name was at length received into the Diptychs and that he was thereby owned to dye Bishop of Conâ—â—antinople notwithstanding the two conciliary Deprivations The onely Observation therefore that he does or could make truly was That aâ—â—he Successions were not scrupulously inquired into that depended on the Authority of the Intruders Those were left to God on a Presumption grounded on their Possession with at least a disputable Title But that is a Case we are not concerned for at present 14. The third Case is that of Flavianus deposed from the same See of Constantinople by Dioscorus against whom our Author supposes Anatolius to have been set up whose Consecration was notwithstanding never questioned because of his Orthodâ—â—y But this Deposition our Author himself owns to have been conciliary though by a Synod very infamous afterwards stigmatized by the name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Latrocinial for the Violence used in it Then it appears not that ever Flavianus did in the least submit to that Synod itself He had before appealed and his Appeal was then depending when they murthered him Then for my part I can see no reason to believe that Anatolius was set up against him or placed in the Throne before it was empty by the Death of Flavianus Victor Tununensis makes Anatolius set up under the following Consuls Possibly it might be because the first News of his Promotion came to Africa under those Consuls That second Synod of Ephesus was called the 1st of August under the Consulship of Asterius and Protogenes for the Year of our Lord 449. But their first Meeting was not till the 8th of that same month or the 15th of Mesori in the Language of Dioscorus Certain it is that it was after this time that â—â—â—vianus was deposed and murthered But we have not so distinct an account of the Actions of this Council repeated in the Council of Chalcedon as to be able to ascertain the time particularly Pope Leo's Epistles help us best to judge of it onely we must allow him the time to receive his Information Leo tells us that Flavianus had suffered many things in an Epistle dated Septemb. 29. Perhaps he was before that deposed For the same day the same Leo wrote another Epistle to the Emperour Theodosius for a Council in Italy probably on the account of Flavianus's Appeal upon his Deposition In another Epistle of Octob. 13. he warns Anastasius Thessalonicensis that he should not consent to the Condemnation of Flavianus In another of Octob. 15. he is very earnest that no Successour should be ordained into his Place In another of the same date he has these words concerning Flavianus in quo utique omnium Domini Sacerdotum Reverentia caeditur universa corporis Christi Membra pulsantur These seem to be the Kicks he received as some say from Barsumas the Monk other from â—ioscorus himself probably enough from both of them of which he dyed within three days That he dyed of Kicks the Synodicon owns and that he dyed in their Hands by whom he should have been carried into Exile we have the Testimony of Prosper an Author of that Age so that he could not reach the place of his Banishment as some other less considerable Authors conceive And very probably those Violences to Flavianus's Person and to the other Bishops also to oblige them to subscribe his Condemnation and Deprivation were the Reasons that made Hilarus fly from Ephesus So the Violences must in all likelihood have been offered before he left the place and he might bring News if not of his Death yet that his Bruises were such as would in all probability prove mortal This might be the Reason why among the Letters of this latest date there are none to Flavianus himself Leo might not think it fit to write Letters that were not likely to reach him alive but would be exposed to the danger of falling into the hands of Enemies This I think is the latest date of any Epistle written by Leo that mentions Flavianus as yet alive And very probably the News of his imminent Death stopped him from proceeding any farther So Nicephorus xiv 40 Thus it appears that the last mention of Flavianus supposes that he had as yet no Rival set up against him Plain it is that they did not set up Anatolius at the same time that they deposed Flavianus and it is not likely that there was any long respite between his Deposition and his Death Flavianus certainly was murthered before the breaking up of the Synod whilst Dioscorus had yet his Guards about him And it seems to be the dissolution of the Synod that breaks off the course of Leo's Letters till the following Year As for Anatolius himself we have no Actions of his that give us any reason to suspect that he was in Office before the Year assigned by
this as notorious as the other from the so often formerly mentioned Synodicon The reason was obvious why he did not repeat this because he says every body knew it and he had mentioned it so often before We must remember he spoke these things to his Pupils in the Patriarchal Church in the very Place where it used to be read annually but this Reason would not have held for his concealing any other Evidence that had neither been so evident to his Auditors nor so expresly and so frequently mentioned by himself on other occasions 43 But neither our Author nor our Adversaries have hitherto considered how incompetent this Testimony of the Synodicon was for proving what they design to prove by it Dyptichs indeed might have been presumed from the Times of the Persons mentioned in them if nothing had appeared to the contrary because the Names conveyed by them were in course entred into those Dyptichs whilst the Persons were living and in Office if it had then been the custome to continue Names in them after the Death of the Persons concerned in them This had been at least a Presumption that they had dyed in Communion with the Church and with each other and that whatever Differences might have risen between them whilst they were living that might have occasioned an Expunging them yet that those Differences were reconciled before their Death when both Parties were thus communicated to Posterity without any Blemish on their Reputation but the Case was quite otherwise in the Tomus Vnionis and the Synodicon The Tomus Vnionis was made on a particular occasion of a Difference and that a difference in Communion which might have proceeded to the uttermost Extremities before the Vnion was at last agreed on Thus it can by no means be taken for an Argument that the Persons concerned in it had not been formerly divided but rather the contrary For if there had been no dâ—vision in Communion before what need had there been of their Vniting which was agreed on by both Parties in the Tomus Vnionis Not onely so but this Tomus Vnionis was agreed on at some time after the Persons principally concerned on both sides were dead and at that distance that can give it no security from being mistaken as to Matter of Fact Thus all that can be gathered from it is that the Church at that distance was in Communion with both as far as the dead are capable of Communion with the living that is by an honourable Commemoration But it cannot thence be gathered that the Persons when living were ever in Communion with each other the contrary may rather be presumed where their mutual Communicating cannot be made out by express and positive Testimony Thence it appeared that the Differences in Communion proceeded farther than the lives of the Persons who begun them Whence it will rather follow that those Beginners of the Divisions persisted in them to their Deaths unless Evidence may be produced to the contrary that may over balance this Presumption Our Editors tell us that this Synodicon was first agreed on in the Year 842. in the beginning of the Reign of Michael and Theodorâ— Had it been so that had been some while after the Deaths of Tarasius and Nicephorus but they give us no Authority for it Nay it was impossible it could have been so The Tomus Vnionis and that part of the Synodicon we are speaking of do wholly concern fourth Marriages And how could that Vnion be made before the Divisions that occasioned it That Question was not started till the Time of Leo Sapiens and the Patriarch Nicholas Mysticus that is as we have already shewn not before the Year 905. accordingly the first passing of this Bill of Vnion was not before the Year 920. in July the 8 th Indiction in the Year of the World as they reckon 6428. in the time of Constantine Porphyrogennetus and Romanus Lacapenus some make it the year following And from this former time of passing it in the Month of July the custome of reading it annually seems to have been derived and that was appointed for the Month of Reading it But it seems the Differences revived again and there was a new Synod for restoring the same Vnion that was in the Reign of Basile and Constantine The Basile who had a Constantine for his Collegue could be no other than he who for distinction sake was called Bulgaroctonos from his Victories against the Bulgâ—rians To his Time belong the Patriarcâ—s who are said to have presided in this second Synod Johannes Curopalates makes it to have been Sisinnius but the Words of the Synod it self as we have them extant in the Jus Graeco Romanum shew that it was his Predecessor Nicholas not Mysticus but Chrysoberges They are both of of them Patriarchs of this Reign and probably both of them presided in this Synod Nicholas in the beginning and Sisinnius in the end of it If this Conjecture be right we shall thereby gain the Year of it exactly It must have been the year wherein Nicholas dyed and Sisinnius succeeded him This will conveniently enough suit with the Insertion at the end of that Tome which the Editor has printed in a smaller Character and called a Scholion no doubt because he found some such note of Distinction in his MS. What follows from that place to the end seems to have been added in that later Council wherein this Tome of Vnion was decreed The Author of that Scholion as it is called speaks plainly of those Times as if they were his own In regard that the Words do very well fit the Persons of the Fathers of the Council themselves They there reckon from the first starting of the Controversie concerning fourth Marriages to that part of the Reign of Basile and Constantine in which that Synod was held that is as I have shewn to the year of the Death of Nicholas Chrysoberges and the Succession of Sisinnius ninety years This will sufficiently fix the Year of this second Council The beginning of this Dispute was when Leo the Wise first designed his fourth Marriage which must have been in the year 905. In the very beginning of the year 906 the Nuptials were solemnized and Matters were so far advanced that the Patriarchal Legates were now at Constantinople and sided with the Emperour against the Patriarch which could not have been if the Matter had not been debated and they sent for in the year before Thus the 90 years will end exactly in the year 995. and the Death of this Nicholas is by Johannes Curopalates placed in the 8 th Indiction which concurs with the former part of that year before September But however though the Vnion was perfected under Sisinnius yet the Decree as we have it now was made before the death of Nicholas That appears from the Acclamation there mentioned in the Council not in the form used by them to the deceased but that which is there appropriated