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
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
cujusmodi poenitentiâ possit illius purgari delictum qui cum uxore fratris sui illicitum praesumpsit inire conjugium Cui nos equidem missis affatibus quorum tenorem tua fraternitas in subjectis inveniet hoc indicare curavimus c. (a) Datum pridie Nonarum Martiarum Ioanne V. C. Consule (b) Oportet ergo ut hec que vobis scribo nullus cognoscat sed magis tanquam suspectum hic me sapientia vestra ante alios existimet habere ut facilius possim hec quae coepi operari perficere (c) Ad haec rescripsit Vigilius Absit hoc à me Domina Augusta Prius locutus sum malè insipienter modo autem nullo modo tibi consentio ut revocem hominem Haereticum anathematizatum Et fi indignus Vicarius sum B. Petri Apostoli quomodo fuerunt antecessores mei sanctissimi Agapetus Silverius qui cum damnaverunt (a) Not on the Year 545 as some say nor 546 as Baronius states it It appears from Cyrillus Scythop Vitâ S. Sabae p. 371 373. That Peter died and Macarius was constituted not before about the end of the sixteenth Year after S Sabas's death Now S. Sabas died the fifth of Decemb. Indict to the sixth Year of Iustinian as appears p. 353 354 And therefore the end of the sixteenth Year after S. Sabas's death was in the latter part of Iustinian's 22d Year which began the First of April And with this agrees what he says pag. 369 371. That the Abbot Gelasius died Octob. Ind. 9. That after him besides the Intervals George was Abbot seven Months after him Cassianus ten Months then Conon in whose time Peter the Patriarch died and Macarius was promoted From hence it appears that Peter was Patriarch about 25 Years not 20 onely as Theophanes and Nicephorus Patriarch tell us for he began three Years before the Beginning of Iustinian's Reign as appears p. 336 337. (b) Hist. Eccles. l. 17 c. 26. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (c) C. 29. (d) L. 4. c. 37. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (a) Vitâ S. Sabae c. 90. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chronogr ad an 2. Iustini Iun. He mistakes the Reign and places it under Iustinian's Successor (c) Nicephorus Patriarch and Theophanes allow him but one Year and so Baronius But in the Author which they follow'd there seems to have been an Error in the writing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He was made Patriarch the 25th Year of Iustinian just before the Fifth General Council was summon'd as appears from Cyril of Scythopolis's Words and wa◠deposed on the 37th of the same Emperour as Victor Tun. asserts It appears from Cyril of Scythop at the end of S. Sabas's Life that he was Patriarch the 23d Year after S. Sabas's Death i. e. the 28th or 29th of Iustinian a Year and more after the end of the Fifth General Council Baronius is extremely mistaken concerning these Patriarchs He orders 'em thus 1. Macarius 2. Eustochius 3. Macarius agen 4. Eustochius agen after the Death of Macarius before the Fifth General Council * Victor Tun. Chron. ad an Justiniani 37. Eustochius Hierosolymitanus Episcopus qui fuerat Macario superstite ordinatus ejicitur rursum Macarius reformatur (a) L. 4. c. 39. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (b) L. 17. c. 29. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The words which I have enclosed in a Parenthesis the Latin Interpreter did not understand (c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chronogr ad an 3. Justini Jun. (a) Vità S. Sabae ad finem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (b) Prato Spirit c. 69. aliis 96. (c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (e) Ap. Surium ad Novemb. 23. c. 10. c. (f) Cum in D. Macarii Episcopi congressum venissent c. (g) Vide c. 24 c. * Synod 119. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (a) L. 4. c. 38. (b) Chron. (c) Chronog p. 203. (d) Chronol (e) Annal. p. 272. (f) Annal. l. 14. c. 9. (g) Hist. Comp. (h) Catalogo Patriarcharum MS. (i) Synaxario M. Aprilis apud Acta Sanctorum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (k) Ed. à Papebrochio ad finem tomi 1 Aprilis Act. Sanct. (l) §. 37 38 39. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 * Graec. in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lat. in Archontes APXONTE◠universim appellati Magnates Proceres Aulae Constantinopolitanae c. (a) Bell. Sac. l. 3. c. 18. (b) L. 3. c. 9. (c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 1. p. 97. Vide in initio singularum actionum (d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 1. Sic in Actionibus sequentibus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (e) Act. 1. p. 985. (f) Vita Ignatii Patriarchae Tom Conc. p. 1204. (g) Syn. 148. (a) P. 931. Goar renders it thus Oratio in promotione Procerum veletiam Patriciorum but the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Prayer which follows shews that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not to be taken in a disjunctive but in an explanative sense and that by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were meant the same (b) Loco inferiùs cit (c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 204. (d) L. 4. c. 1. (e) Chron. (f) Ap. Evag. l. 4. c. 14. (g) Some Authors make the Emperor Iustin. jun. to reign in all not above eleven years or eleven years and eight months but it is a mistake (h) A farther Account of the Baroc MS. p. 12. (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (b) L. 17. c. 36. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (c) Tom. 2. p 184. Anno verò imperii sui 28. certior factus Eutychium Patrem Constantinopolitanum veritati contradicere ac Iacobitam factum esse ipsum in exilium ejecit cujus in locum suffectus est ibi Ioannes ut Patriarchatûs Constantinopolitam munere fungeretur qui septem annos sedit dein mortuus est Tum Eutychius Patriarcha relegatus Imperatorem aggressus est ope Consiliariorum ac Ducum qui ipsum rogarunt ut eum Cathedrae restitueret siquidem falsum fuisse quod de eo dictum fuerat Cathedrae ergo ab Imperatore restitutus est quam cùm quadriennio occupaverat mortuus est Anno ejusdem 39. constitutus est Iohannes Patriarcha Constantinopolitanus annos 13. sedit dein mortuus est (d) He takes no notice at all of Eutychius's being ever deposed or that Iohn was ever Patriarch (e) Iustinus Imperator nepos Iustiniani coronatus à Ioanne Patriarcha (f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (g) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (a) Ioannes Presbyter Antiochiae e◠numero Scholasticorum an 12. m. 7. (b) After the words above-cited it follows 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (c) P. 299. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id male 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ad an 12. Iustini jun. Anastasius Bibl. in his Latin Translation thus Tertio decimo imperii Iustini anno Ioanne Constantinopolitano defuncto
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
deprived at least that his Consent was desired and granted for the Ratification of the King's Sentence A wretched and a groundless Shift that deserves not to be confuted A third Evasion is that of the Author of a Pamphlet entituled Solomon and Abiathar c. King Solomon says he did not properly and judicially deprive Abiathar of the High-priesthood but onely commanded or required him to quit it on pain of death For thus the words run And unto Abiathar said the King Get thee to thy Fields at Anathoth for thou art a Man of death But this day I will not put thee to death because c. Which the LXXII render thus Get thee to Anathoth to thy Field for thou art a Man of death in this very day but I will not put thee to death because c. A Man of death our Translation renders worthy of death but the LXXII render the words not so much significative of Merit as a Menace according to such a Paraphrase Get thee off to Anathoth to thy Field for else thou art a Man of death this very day and if thou do'st so I will not put thee to death So that Abiathar here was put to his Option Whether he would with dishonour retire from his Office or suffer death this latter being in the rightfull power of the King if Abiathar would not yield in the former So that Abiathar 's Priesthood determin'd by his own voluntary Cession not the King's Censure In answer to this I need but produce the Words of the LXXII 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. This excepting the Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which are removed from the latter Clause to the antecedent agrees exactly with the Hebrew and the natural sence of those words is no other than what we have in our English Translation with which all Interpreters agree Iosephus as is plain from his Words above produced the Chaldee Paraphrast the Syriack the Arabick and the Latin Translators together with the Rabbinical Commentators Who all understand the Text of a positive and authoritative Ejectment And that it was a positive Command not an Option proposed to Abiathar but an absolute Deprivation is yet more plain from the words which immediately follow So Solomon thrust out Abiathar c. in the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Bartoldus Nihusins has another sort of Evasion He tells us That Abiathar was onely turn'd out of his Office at Ierusalem and forbid to officiate as High-priest at Court where the Ark was fixt not properly deprived of the Office of High-priest For afterwards says he he was permitted to officiate as High-priest at Gibeon where Zadok himself had been formerly High-priest before he was made in his stead High-priest of the Ark in Ierusalem And this he thinks may be prov'd from hence That in the 4th of the 2d of Kings he is rankt with Zadok as High-priest under Solomon And Benaiah the Son of Iehoiada was over the Host. And Sadok and Abiathar were Priests This Conjecture of Nihusius were it granted to be true would not make at all for his Cause nor yet against ours For still it is certain that Abiathar was turn'd out at Ierusalem and Zadok was made High-priest in his stead and by all acknowledged as the true Aaronick High-priest Whether Zadok when High-priest at Gibeon was properly a High-priest independent of Abiathar or onely Vicarius like our Suffragan Bishops or Chorepiscopi is what we cannot determine neither are we concerned to know Certain it is that when he was made High-priest at Ierusalem in the room of Abiathar he was anointed in the same manner as others used to be who were never High-priests before Abulensis says there are some who conclude from the Text before quoted That Abiathar by the special Clemency of the King was again restor'd to the great High-priesthood of Ierusalem And of this Opinion says Frischmuth was Carthusianus But that is a mistake for the Conjecture of Carthusianus is onely this That Abiathar was permitted by the King to officiate under Zadok as one of the minor Priests Whoever they were that were of the aforesaid Opinion it is certain they were under a Mistake For the Scripture observes that when Abiathar was turn'd out and Zadok put in his place the Words which God had spoken to Eli concerning the Alienation of the High-priesthood from his Family were fulfilled And what was that Prophecy There shall not be says God an Old man in thy house for ever I will raise me up a faithfull Priest and I will build him a sure house and he shall walk before mine anointed for ever And it shall come to pass that every one that is left in thy house shall come and crouch to him for a piece of silver and a morsel of bread and shall say Put me I pray thee into one of the Priests Offices that I may eat a piece of bread This plainly demonstrates that Abiathar was not again restor'd to the great High-priesthood at Ierusalem And from thence it may likewise be gather'd that he was not permitted to officiate as High-priest at Gibeon So great an Honour would hardly suit with that Prophecy And how is it likely that the King would permit one whom he had banish'd from Ierusalem as his Enemy and unworthy of the High-priesthood to officiate as High-priest at Gibeon since he himself which Nihusius seems not to have thought on was wont to go thither and to offer Sacrifices there as well as at Ierusalem I might add against both these Opinions as well the one as the other that Iosephus knew nothing of Abiathar's Officiating after his Ejectment He takes it for granted as appears by the Sentence which he makes the King pass upon him that he never came any more into the King's sight but liv'd all his life at Anathoth And Abravanel a learned and judicious Rabbi is so far from thinking that he afterwards Officiated as High-priest either at Gibeon or at Ierusalem that he thinks he was banish'd to Anathoth as to a Prison and was not to stir thence upon peril of Life And so far was Kimchi from being of either of the aforesaid Opinions upon the account of that Text that he thinks Abiathar who is mentioned there with Zadok was not he that was Ejected but another of that Name 'T is a Conjecture of R. Levi Ben Gerson that Abiathar was sometimes permitted to Officiate in the room of Zadok when-ever Zadok was by any Defect or Pollution made uncapable of Officiating himself And therefore he is rankt with Zadok in that Text. Others think with Carthusianus That therefore he is mention'd with Zadok because he was admitted to Officiate as one of the lesser Priests 'T is the Opinion of others That therefore he is mention'd with Zadok because in the beginning of Solomon's Reign he had been High-priest For it is not say they the Design of that Chapter
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
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
are told by some of our Answerers that S. Chrysostom looked upon himself as a dying Man when he used these words in taking his leave of the Bishops and of the Deaconesses and therefore they cannot import that he would have them submit to a Bishop who should succeed him during his Life But if they had duely consider'd the Words which he spoke to the Deaconesses they would easily have seen that what they say is not true And perhaps my Face you will never see any more What means the word perhaps if he verily expected a speedy Death 'T is as clear I think as the Sun from that single Word that he did not then certainly expect to be put to Death And it likewise appears from that Word that the Advice he gives the Deaconesses concerning their submitting to his Successor was intended as well for his own Life-time as otherwise Since he plainly intimates that he thought it doubtful whether they should ever see him again or not if he had only intended that they should submit to a Successor after his Death he would have plainly told 'em so As he takes care to tell 'em that the Bishop they ought to submit to should be one duely Elected so he would likewise have told 'em that it ought to be after his own Death This Answer it seems was not thought so sufficient but that some have thought fit to contrive another way to escape Perhaps says one of our Answerers those Speeches were not truly S. Chrysostom's but made in his Name by Palladius To this I answer 1. That if it were true that those Speeches were made by the Author not really spoken by S. Chrysostom yet this at least must be confess'd that the Author intended when he made those Speeches to make such Speeches as would be thought proper for so great a Man to speak such as should beget in his Reader a great Esteem and Veneration for S. Chrysostom This at least must be granted that in that Age in which the Author wrote it was thought a thing very Commendable not to assert ones Right so as to occasion a Schism But 2. there is not any reason to suspect that these Speeches were invented by the Author He speaks so particularly of things he tells ye the Name of the Bishop and the Names of the Deaconesses to whom he speaks and the whole Relation carries with it so great an Air of Truth that it cannot with any shew of Reason be call'd in Question Sure I am those Speeches were always understood by the Antients to be truly S. Chrysostom's own Nicephorus Callisti tells us that S. Chrysostom commanded the Bishops not to separate from the Communion of his Enemies and the Deaconesses to submit to his Successor and he highly praises him for it And George Patriarch of Alexandria in his Life of Chrysostom out of which Photius has given us some Excerpa mentions the same thing that he beg'd the Bishops not to make a Schism in the Church on his Account This was S. Chrysostom's Judgment whilst his Piety was too warm for his Resentment but the best of Men are not always consistent with themselves After he was carried away from Constantinople his Passions so far prevail as to make him Act contrary to his own Advice He separates from the Church and sends about Letters to encourage others to do so What the reason of this was is no hard matter to guess It appears by the Acts of the Synod ad Quercum by which he was deposed that Arsacius and Atticus had both been Witnesses against him Palladius assures us that Atticus was the Contriver of all that was done against him and Sozomen tells us that he was one of those that conspir'd against him And this in all Likelihood was the Cause why he would not yield to ' em He hated 'em as his Enemies and his Passions were too strong for his Piety He had own'd before that his Successors ought to be received but when he saw that such were made his Successors as had had a hand in his Deprivation and had been Witnesses against him when he saw that even Atticus himself his very great Enemy was made his Successor his Passions grew too strong for his Iudgment If the Epistle to Cyriacus were written by S. Chrysostom in whose Name it was published his Passions must needs be confessed by all to be very exorbitant I hear that that Dotard Arsacius whom the Empress has placed in my Chair persecutes those that will not Communicate with him and that many of them have died in Prison That Dotard But I am not willing to believe so ill a thing of S. Chrysostom as that he would suffer his Passion to break out after that manner and tho' Photius a great Critick quotes that Epistle as one of S. Chrysostom's yet I doubt not but they are in the Right who reject it as Spurious and of a Style quite different from S. Chrysostom's 'T is observed by one of our Answerers that there are so many Accidents which may make any Authors Style different at different times especially in his familiar Letters and those written in Banishment and perhaps under the Disorders of Sickness and Dangers which S. Chrysostom so often complains of that this censure from the Style must be the less certain especially since Photius did not discern it We grant that S. Chrysostom did not give up his Right to Arsacius there is no need therefore that our Author should defend that Epistle But if he will needs have it let him have it It will make more against his Cause than for it Only this I shall say that it is from the Style of those very Epistles which S. Chrysostom wrote in his Banishment in the very same Circumstances and about the same Concerns that I am fully convinced that that to Cyriacus is not Genuine Black and White are hardly more different And among all S. Chrysostom's Epistles there is not one that resembles it If Photius did not discern it 't was because he did not consider it 2. It is to be observed that they that adher'd to S. Chrysostom and refused to Communicate with his Successors Arsacius and Atticus were rather carried away by their Passions than governed by Conscience and Principles This appears from hence that tho' Atticus was constituted against S. Chrysostom's Will and tho' they themselves had separated from him and continu'd in their Separation long after S. Chrysostom's Death yet when Atticus had restor'd S. Chrysostom's Name to the Diptychs of the Church then almost all were well satisfied and Communicated with Atticus as a true Bishop How can this be Reconcilable to Principles How could the inserting S. Chrysostom's Name in the Diptychs make Atticus sit to be own'd as a Bishop if he was not qualified to be own'd before It is plain they were govern'd by their Love to S. Chrysostom not by Principles Others there were of the Ioannites
Iud. l. 2. c. 25 28. l. 4. c. 5 6 7. (l) Antiq. l. 20. c. 8. (m) Ibid. (a) De Bello Iâ—d l. 4. c. 11. (a) S Iohn c. 18. v. 22. * Acts 23.5 * Excepting Capital Causes which were prohibited by the Romans not onely to the High-priest properly so call'd but likewise to the Sanedrin it self For it was not lawfull for the Iews when under the Government of the Romans to put any man to death †Antiq. l. 20. c. 8. * With this Notion agrees very well that Relation in Iosephus concerning the High-priests in the time of King Agrippa Antiq. l. 20. c. 6. Et ipsi summi Pontifices dissidere caeperunt à Sacerdotibus primatibus Hierosolymitanorum Civium In tantum autem exarsit summorum Pontificum impudentia ut anderent servos suos in areas mittere qui auferrent debitas Sacerdotibus decimas aliquótque pauperiores è sacerdotum ordine alimentorum inepiâ fame deficerent †De hoc vide Lightfooti Heb. Talmud exercitat in S. Lucam c. 1. v. 5. ‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 * P. 1013. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 * See the Words in the following Paragraph †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 6. c. 33. ‖ De Bel. Jud. l. 7. c. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sic Cod. MS. Bigotii Ruffini Versioni consonus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 11. v. 49.51 c. 18. v. 13. †Quoted by Selden de Succes in Pontiff p. 168. ‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 18. v. 13. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 De Bel. Jud. l. 2. c. 11. †Antiq. l. 20. c. 3. 5. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Antiq. l. 20. c. 5. †1 Chron. XV. 11. * C. XI v. 51. * Liberius was banished Arbitione Lolliano Coss. says Sulpitius Severus Hist. Sacr. lib. 2. cap. 55. It appears likewise from other Authorities that it was on the year 355. (a) l. 2. c. 37. (b) l. 4. c. 11. (c) l. 2. c. 16. 17. (d) Apolog. ad Const. Epist. and Solit. p. 834 835. (e) Hist. l. 15. c. 8. (f) Libellus Synodicus c. 51. Marcell and Faustinus Praef. ad libell Prec Pontifical (g) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (h) Cognoverat etiam Liberius quod Felicis illius successoris clerus populus urbis communionem velut Haeretici declinarent ejúsque solenniis nequaquam interessent Chron. Tom. 2. l. 4. c. 4. (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epist. ad Solitar p. 861. (b) Ammianus Marcel says That the People burned with the love of Liberius ejus amore stagrabat to that degree that they that were to carry him away dar'd not attempt it in the day-time but were forc'd to do it at midnight and even at that time they could not do it without a great deal of difficulty (c) Sed co die quo Liberius in exilium proficiscebatur Clerus omnis i. e. Presbyteri Archidiaconus Felix ipse Damasus Diaconus cuncta Ecclesiae Officia omnes pariter praesente populo Romano sub jurejurando firmaverunt se vivente Liberio Pontificem alterum nullatenus habituros Sed Clerus contra fas quod minimè decebat this they say as the inveterate Enemies of Damasus who was one of that Clerus cum summo perjurii seclere Felicem Archidiaconum ordinatum in locum Liberii susceperunt Praefat. ad Libellum Precum (d) Liberio in exilium ob fidem truso omnes Cleriâ—â— juraverunt ut nullum alâ—â—â— sisâ—iperâ—nt â—erum quum Felix ab Arâ—â—is fuissit in Sacerdotium subslituâ—â— plurimi pâ—jeraverunt post â—mâ—um cuâ— Felice ejecti sunt quâ— Libâ—rius tâ—diâ— victus exilii in haeretica pravitate subscribenâ— Roman quasi victointraverat Chron. ad â—â— 350. †lib. 16. tit 2. leg 14. (a) De Scriptor Eccles in Fortunatiano (b) Ad Constantion Imp. (c) Hist. l. 4. c. 3. (d) l. 4. c. 15. (e) Epist. ad Solit. p. 837. (f) Marcel Faustinus in Praefat. ad Libellum Precum (a) Cum Liberio Damasus Diaconus ejus se sâ—nulat proficisci unde fugiens de itinere Roman rediit ambitione corruptus (b) Quo mortuo Presbyteri aliquot Diaconi S. R. E. Liberianae partis statim Ursicinum Diaconum Episcopum constituunt à Paulo Episcopo Tiburtino ordinari faciunt Hi verò qui Felici adhaeserant Damasum in Schismate etiam ipsi Pontificem Romanum renunciant Onuphrius Not. ad Platinam ad vitam Felicis II. ex Registro ab Ursinianis scripto (c) Tune Presbyteri Diaconi Ursinus Amantius Lupus cum plebe sanctâ que Liberio fidem servaverat in exilio constituo caeperunt in Basilicâ Iulii procedere sibi Ursinum Diaconum Pontificem in locum Liberit ordinarâ— deposcunt Perjuri verò in Lucinis Damasum sibi Episcopum in locum Felicis expostulant (a) Nic. Montacutius in versibus de Romanis Pontif. (b) Epist. 30. ad Valentin Augustum (c) Lib. 6. contra Iulianum c. 12. (d) Lib. 10. Epist 41. (e) Rescripto apud Sirmondianas Conciliorum Italiae Epistolas p. 94. (f) Apolog. ad Pammachium propè finem (g) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theodoret Hist. l. 5. c. 10. (h) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid. l. 2. c. 22. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid. l. 5. c. 2 Libellus Cynodicus c. 65. †Cod. Theodos. lib. 16. tit 1. leg 2. By Isaac Catholicus Invectivâ 1. in Armenios p. 390 he is reckon'd amongst the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ‖ Damasus was 23 Years old in the time of the Council of Nice (i) Pontificale Ado in Martyrolog c. (k) From October in the Consulship of Gratian and Dagalaiphus in which Damasus was made Bishop as appears by the Presb. Marcellinus and Faustinus to October in the Consulship of Antonius and Syagrius in which he died as appears by Marcellinus Gomes are just 16 Years (l) Catalogo Script Eccles. prope octogenarius which Sophronius translates 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So Suidas out of him * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 2. c. 37. †Biblioth Cod. 258. p. 1445. (a) Damasus Romane Ecclesiae exceptis Liberio Felice XXXV Episcopus (b) Chron. ad an 329 349. (c) De Schismate Donatist l. 2. p. 36. Marco Successit Iulius Iulio Liberius Liberio Damasus c. (d) Epist. 165. in the same words with Optatus * See Daronius's Annals an 357. §. 50. †That the Title of Martyr was frequently given to such tho' they died a natural Death See Forbesâ—i Instruct. Hist. Theol. l. 12. c. 2. c. and Suiceri Thesaâ—ltus ‖ The Pontifical says a year and two months It is certain from Theodoret S. Athanasiuâ— Epist. ad Solit. p. 837. Apolog. ad Const. p. 807. and the Presb. Marcellinus and Faustinus that 't was somewhat more than two years that Liberius was in Banishment * Post annos octo defunctus est Felix Liberius misericordiam fecit in Glericos qui