AN ANSWER TO A TREATISE OUT OF Ecclesiastical History Translated from An Ancient Greek MANUSCRIPT in the Publick Library at Oxford BY HVMFRET HODY B. D. c. And Published under the Title of The Unreasonableness of a Separation from the New BISHOPS TO SHEW That although a Bishop was unjustly deprived neither he nor the Church ever made a Separation if the Successor was not an Heretick To which is added The CANONS in the Baroccian Manuscript Omitted by Mr. HODY LONDON Printed and are to be sold by J. Wells near S. Paul's Church-Yard 1691. THE PREFACE THat a Separation is always unreasonable on one side or the other is without all question but that it is unreasonable to separate from New Bishops that are placed in the Sees of Bishops who are uncanonically deposed for this Cause only that they are in Possession upon what Reason and Justice soever of the said Episcopal Sees is very strange Doctrine and such as was never I think heard of in the Church of England till this Treatise was published For in the Sense of the Catholick Church in her Canons and Constitutions the New Bishop himself in such a Case makes the Separation and to continue Communion with the true Bishop is not to separate from the wrongful Possessor but to keep our former Place and Station to adhere to the Right and not to follow those who have set themselves up in opposition to it But the Doctrin which this Anonymous Greek Author is brought to vouch for to the World is of such a pernicious Nature and if it be allowed must have such destructive Consequences in the Church that I cannot but think that all Men who have a sincere Love for the Church of England whatever their Opinions may be in other Matters will not be ill pleased to see it proved that there is no Example to be found of this in the Practice of the Greek Church till it was reduced to so low and deplorable a Condition as to be no longer a Pattern for Imitation but a Caution rather for us to beware of those things which brought the Greeks into that Distress under which they have so long groaned And if we will but give our selves the least leisure to consider what is then that can bring more certain and speedy Ruine upon a Church than to act by such a Principle as makes all Ecclesiastical Authority have its sole and entire dependance upon external Force and Power and upon the casual Success and Events of things For if when the Civil Magistrate shall displace a Bishop for any frivolous cause or for no Cause at all but with the greatest and most apparent Injustice all Christians shall be obliged in Conscience to submit to the Intruder if he be but Orthodox and not to adhere to their lawful Bishop this utterly destroys all Church Authority and gives it up wholly into the Power of the Magistrate who may set up what Bishop he pleases provided they be no Hereticks and change them as often as he pleases and the Clergy and People shall be bound in Conscience to take no further notice of the dispossessed but to live under the new ones be they never so many and never so bad in all Acts of Communion and Obedience Now unless the Church can be ruined by nothing but Heresie or there be nothing that can render a Bishop unqualified for his Station but Heresie it is evident that this Doctrine leaves it at the Mercy of the Prince whether there shall long be any Church in his Dominions It is manifest that these Principles make all Church Censures ineffectual and expose the Church to all the Mischiefs of Erastianism For if a Prince should prefer an excommunicated Person to the See of the Bishop by whom he stands excommunicated supposing only that he was not excommunicated for Heresie this Person tho never so justly excommunicated must be owned and obeyed instead of the Bishop who excommunicated him which lodges all Church Power in the Prince and makes all Ecclesiastical Censures of no effect for the Benefit and Preservation of the Church whenever he pleases A Schismatical Prince by this Doctrine may set up Schismatical Bishops and the Church will have no Remedy against them For instance if Constantine had been a Novation or Donatist he might have deposed the Rightful Bishops and have set up Novations or Donatists in their stead if those Sects were then only Schisms and they were no more at first But whoever can imagin that the Clergy and People of that Age would have communicated with them and have deserted their true Bishop may indeed believe all that our Author has said Tho the truth is according to his Principles no Prince can be a Schismatick because he may make what Bishops he pleases and so can make what Church he pleases and it will be the Duty of Christians to communicate not with their Bishops but with their Prince or which is the same thing with what Bishops he appoints A Popish Prince might set up Popish Bishops amongst us for he could never want Men who at least upon as good Grounds and from as good Authorities as those upon which this Doctrine is propounded to us would prove that Popery is no Heresie A Prince of a Latitudinarian Faith may by these Principles give us Socinian Bishops For the Disciples of Episcopius and Curcellaeus will undertake to prove that the Points in Controversie are not of necessity to Salvation and do not consequently involve the Assertors of them in Heresie And if a Prince should design never so well for the Glory of God and the Interest of Religion yet how easie it is for Princes to be mistaken and misled in things of this nature we may see in Constantine himself who was deceived by the Arians into a good Opinion of them after the Council of Nice even to the sending St. Athanasius away from his See tho he took care to keep it void from him till his return to prevent a Schism which by the Practice of the Church could not otherwise have been avoided But this is most of all remarkable in the unhappy Reign of Constantius who certainly was a very Devout Prince and had very good intentions in calling so many Synods and therefore the Fathers often mention him with Respect and with great Compassion but was miserably deluded and imposed upon by the Arians and persuaded to banish all the Orthodox Bishops and fill up the Sees with those of their own number But we must observe that tho Constantius believed that the Arians were not Hereticks but Orthodox and died in his errâ—r as S. Athanasius declares tho S. Gregory Nanianzen and Theodorâ—t say the contrary and therefore cannot be supposed to want any inclinations to Depose Athanasius by his own Power and the Arians wanted no Malice against Athanasius nor no Authority with the Emperour to put him upon it yet because according to the Doctrine professed on both sides this could not be done
they were forced to be at all that trouble to get a Synod of their own Party to effect it But if it be left to the Arbitrary Will of the Prince to Depose the Orthodox Bishops at his Pleasure and supply the vacancies with any whom he thinks fit and their Dioceses must be obliged in Conscience to acknowledge them he will be sure in a short time to have such Bishops as shall determine that only to be Heresie which he will have to be so and it is a vain thing to say that Heretical Bishops must not be promoted or that they must not be obeyed for in a little time by this Doctrine there will be nothing reputed Heresie nor Schism but to hold a different Opinion and a different Commanion from that of the Prince But to come nearer home this Doctrine denies the Church a Power which is granted to be in all other Societies own no Head but of their own choosing or who is otherwise regularly set over them according to their Charter or Constitution and it seems if King James had put in new Bishops against the consent of the Chapters the Dioceses would have been obliged to obey them though the Fellows of Magdalen College in Oxford were bound in Conscience not to acknowledge a President who was forced upon them against their Statutes It may perhaps be said that we are secured from all the inconveniences that would follow from this Doctrine inasmuch as by the Laws of the Land no Bishop can be forced upon us by the King but he must be chosen by the Chapter of the Cathedral Church of the Diocese to which he is nominated But first if this Doctrine be calculated only for our own Church and we must be governed by a different Rule from the rest of the Catholick Church why then is the Practice of the Greek Church brought to recommend it to us But if this have been the Doctrine and Practice of all Churches we are not to imagine that the Laws of the Land can make it no sin but a Duty to separate from intruding Bishops when the Laws of God and of his Church enjoyn the contrary For the Laws of our Country must cease to oblige us in Conscience when they are inconsistent with the Doctrine and Practice of the Church in all Ages and if these have been always the Principles and this the Practice of the Church as it is now pretended to own the present Bishop whoever he be if he be no Heretick I doubt it will be in vain to alledg the Laws of the Land against an Intruder when he is once in Possession as long as he can keep his Possession but we must have Bishops de Facto and must be bound in Conscience to submit to them by whatever ill means they came in at first But suppose that the Laws of the Land would be a security to us as they have hitherto been and will be still if we retain our old Principles yet how can we be sure that the Laity will be more tender of the Honour and welfare of the Church than the Clergy themselves are And that if the Clergy give up the Ecclesiastical Authority they will not be willing to consent to it and be contented that a Prince should be absolute in Ecclesiastical Affairs if he will but act according to Law in Civil But whatever security there may be from the Secular Power to the Church since it is incorporated into the State yet by these Principles the Church could not have supported it self against the Attempts of Schismaticks before the Emperours became Christians and if the Civil Government should withdraw its Protection it is plain this Scheme leaves the Church no Power to defend it self against the Vsurpation of one Bishop upon another for by this Model of Church-Government if a Bishop get into Possession of anothers Diocese by any way whatsoever whether by the Secular Power or by any other means provided he be no Heretick he is from thence forth to be looked upon as the true Bishop notwithstanding any Canon of the Church against his Vsuâ—pation So that this Notion does effectually dissolve all Church-Government and leaves no Power and Authority in the Church to preserve it self but leaves it at the Mercy not only of the Civil Magistrate but of any Invader who is no Heretick or does not appear to be such Novatian if he could have got into Possession of the Episcopal Throne must by these Principles have been submitted to as Bishop of Rome than which nothing can be more absurd or more contrary to the Doctrine and Practice of the Church in all Ages And if the Cause of the New Bishops can be defended by none but such Principles it is plain that it is not to be defended at all for we must not contradict the Doctrine of the Church in all Ages to serve a present Turn nor maintain the Church in this Age so as to have no Church left for the next But I shall not here undertake further to shew how dangerous and destructive these Principles are to the Church of England and to Religion in general much less is it my business to state the Case now in Controversie I intend only to pursue the Author of this Treatise through his Discoveries which he pretends to make in Ecclesiastical History and if I can shew that this Greek has put a fallacy upon us I hope we shall not suffer our selves to be cheated by the impertinent and false Stories of an obscure Writer of no Name nor Authority but who appears to have lived in the most decayed and worst State of the Greek Church when their Sermons were nothing but ill digested Rapsodies which both for their Stile and Sense will scarce endure the Reading their Ecclesiastical Histories nothing but Legends of Miracles and all their Histories both Ecclesiastical and Civil full of such idle Stories as most Men are ashamed to tell after them and when by their Vices and Ignorance they had rendred themselves ripe for that Destruction which soon after came upon them It is to those Ages that we owe the loss of so many of the Works of the Fathers of the First Centuries and the Corruption of others to Countenance the Tenets and Practices of their own times and it is no wonder that when their Bishops were so often Deposed at the pleasure of the Emperour upon frivolous or rather upon very unjust pretences some should endeavour to make it believed that such Proceedings must be acquiesced in according to the Practice of former Ages in the like cases when the decay of all sound Knowledge and true Religion and of all good Orders and Discipline both in Church and State was so great and their Divisions so incurable which were principally occasioned or extremely heightened by the frequent changes of the Patriarchs that they at last brought utter ruin upon the Empire and subjected the Church to the Arbitrary Pleasure of the Grand Seignior And it is
Constantius Lucifer Calaritanus coming to Antioch Consecrated Pauâ—inus Bishop of that City which when he saw the Orthodox Bishops and particularly Eusebius of Vercelles disapprove of it gave the first occasion to Lucifer to begin that Sect which from him took its denomination Meletius at his return from Exile under Julian finds Socr. l. 3. c. 9. Sozom. l 5. c. 13. the Church of Antioch divided into three Parties one that followed Euroius the Arian Bishop another that Communicated with Paulinus and a third that adhered still to himself as their lawful Bishop the Arians had possessed themselves of all the Churches within the City but one of the small Churches which they allowed Paulinus so that he was forced to hold his Assemblies without the Gates Meletius suffered a second Banishment under Valens and when he was restored by Gratian Paulinus being then Ancient Socr. l. â— c. 5. those who were of Meletius's Communion endeavoured to have the difference so Composed that both he and Paulinus might together Preside in that See But Paulinus refused to agree to it alledging that Meletius had received his Ordination from Arian Bishops Upon this the People were in a Ferment and caused Meletius to resume the Throne in one of the Churches without the City This bred great contentions between the Parties but at last they came to this agreement That whosoever of these two Bishops should die first the survivour should be the sole Bishop of the See and there being six Men then in Antioch who upon the Death of them might probably make pretensions to the Succession they were all sworn to this Agreement And thus the difference was Composed only the Luciferians would by no means be prevailed with to Communicate with him but set up separate Congregations Thus it was according to the account Socrates gives of this Matter but as Theodorite relates it Sapores whom the Emperor had sent to inspect and regulate this Business seeing the great equity and condescension of Meletius put him into Possession Theod. l. 5. c. 3. of the Bishoprick for he makes no mention of any Agreement between him and Paulinus but only says that Meletius had the See delivered up to him and Paulinuus remained Bishop only of that Party which adhered to him This being the case since Meletius was so eminent a defender of the Orthodox Faith as he is confessed by all to have been and had twice suffered Banishment for it and during his first Banishment had one irregularly placed in his See and did afterwards notwithstanding so great a Provocation use all the Condescension that could be expected in such a Case it could be no just Prejudice against him that he was at first made Bishop by the Arians or rather by the Semi-Arians or Acacians who upon occasion would subscribe Scer l. 3. c. 25. the Nicene Creed and pretended to have no exceptions to the Doctrines contained in it but were for taking away the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as not being found in Scripture as if the difference had been only in Terms contriving in the mean time all the ways possible to undermine the Faith by their own Expositions But it does not appear that Meletius ever was an Arian himself on the contrary the Orthodox Fathers never mention him but with the greatest commendations and he seems to have been imposed upon by the Acacians and Semi-Arians for a while who disguised and dissembled their Opinions For when he was called to give an account of his Faith in the presence of Constantius himself in the Synod Theod. l. 2. c. 31. at Antioch he declared himself to the entire satisfaction of the Orthodox Bishops and it was no more than they expected from him and were before well assured of which made them so desirous to have him advanced to the See of Antioch And tho Socrates Socr. l. 2. c. 44. says that Meletius subscribed the Form of Faith which Acacius produced in the Synod of Selencia yet this seems to be a mistake which perhaps the partiality which he plainly enough discovers for Paulinus might betray him to for Meletius's name is not to be found among the Subscriptions to the Creed of Acacius set down in Epiphanius Epiphan Haer. 73. Now it was determined in this Case in a Council at Alexandria (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Athanas Epiâ—t ad Ruhnianum inter ejus op Tom. 2. p. 40. apud Conc. Nicen. 2. Act. 1. Col. 75. that the worst of Hereticks the very Principal and Leading Men among them upon the renouncing their Errors and reconciling themselves to the Church by Repentance should be received to Communion tho not to Officiate as Clergymen but the less culpable who had been abused and misled were likewise to be permitted the Exercise and Administration of their Function Which is no more than was practised in the Council of Nice it self towards the Arian Bishops who renounced their Heresie and signed the Nicene Creed as S. Hierom urges in his Dialogue Adversus Luciferianos where he disputes this point at large This was Conc. Nic. Can. 8. Socr. l. 1. c. 9. Vales de Schism Donatist all along the Practice of the Church towards the Arians and Novations and Donatists and the Meletians who were so denominated from Meletius the African Bishop to admit of their Orders upon their Reconciling themselves to the Church and thus it was confirmed and established in the Council of Nice And to the determinations of this Council of Alexandria Lucifer Calaritanus himself had Socr. l. 3. c. 9. Sozom. l. 5. â— 13. given his assent by his Deacon whom he had sent thither for that purpose and (b) Assensus est huic sententiae Occidens per tam necessarium concilium Satanae faucibus mundus â—reptus est Hieron adv Luciferian all the Western Church approved of this Decree as the only Remedy against the Arian Heresie For the true Reason why the Western Bishops espoused the Cause of Paulinus against Meletius was not for any Objection they had against his Ordination which was made an Objection by none but the Luciferians but because he had been represented in the West as an Heretick as S. Basil complains and Basil Ep. 321. 349. as it appears from S. Hierom's two Epistles to Damasus wherein he desires to know of him with whom he should Communicate at Antioch and Paulinus was thought little better of in the East for receiving to Communion the Associates of Marcellus But Meletius â—d Epist 74. Epiphan Haer. 77. was received as Patriarch of Antioch in the General Council of Constantinople and dying there S. Gregory Nyssen in the presence of that Venerable Assembly celebrated his memory with the highest Praises in his Funeral Oration And upon his death Flavianus was by unanimous consent chosen Epist Synod C. P. apud Theod. l. 5. c. 9. Socr. l. 5. c. 15. Bishop of Antioch and the choice confirmed in that
General Council tho Paulinus was yet living who thereupon nominated Euagrius for his Successor but he dying soon after Paulinus no other Bishop was chosen in his room But the state of this Controversie as it lay between the Meletians and Luciferians is a direct confutation of the whole design of this Authors Treatise For if all Christians are obliged to look no further than to the Bishop in Possession Paulinus was put into possession of the See of Antioch whilst Meletius was in Banishment and he at his return was forced to hold his Assemblies without the City yet the Meletians never thought this any Reason for their compliance nor did the Adherents of Paulinus ever urge it upon them they urged that Meletius had been made Bishop by Arians and that Plea was over-ruled by the determination of a Council held at Alexandria whereas if our Authors notion had then been good Doctrine it must soon have decided the Question for no Man could deny but Paulinus was actual Bishop in the absence of Meletius which was a better pretence than if he had been turned out to make way for him and so it is impoâ—sible but this Argument must have been insisted upon if this had been then an approved Doctrine and it had been at least a good Argument in the Eastern Church where our Author would make us believe it was always the Custom to Communicate with the Bishop for the time being however he came to be so and it is incredible that in so weighty a Controversie which was so long depending no Man should once think of the thing which could alone decide it when it was so obvious to all capacites and is supposed to have been received into the constant Practice of the Church in all such cases St. Chrysostom himself after the Socr. l. 6. c. 3. death of Meletius for three whole years would not Communicate with either side and at last as all but Socrates testifie was ordained Presbyter by Flavianus that is he espoused the cause of the Meletians and took directly the contrary side to that which he ought to have taken by these Principles For it was a received Maxim that regularly there could be but one Bishop of one Church at the same time for if a Bishop appointed his own Successor and took him in his life time for an Assistant to him this was an extraordinary case and he retained the Authority still to himself or it was at his own choice whether he would part with any of it and if the Bishop in Possession were to be the one Bishop Meletius had been precluded by Paulinus when he reâ—urned from Banishment and Paulinus was afterwards left in Possession upon the death of Meletius 'T is plain then that this Doctrine was unknown to the whole Church at that time and particularly to S. Chrysostom upon whose account this is brought and whose Case comes now to be considered The Author observes that upon the Pag. 2. Deposing of S. Chrysostom Arsacius was placed in his See who in fourteen months time must be supposed to Oâ—dain Bishops Priests and Deacons or if he did not yet Atticus succeeded him whilst S. Chrysostom was yet alive and in Exile Atticus sat as Patriarch twenty years and yet all his Ordinations were never questioned but were received by the Church as if they had been Canonical Atticus was succeeded by Sisinnius and he by Nestorius and both Atticus and Sisinnius were owned as Patriarchs by Celestine Bishop of Rome in an Epistle to Nâ—storius and in the General Council of Ephesus no exceptions were made to the Promotions of the Patriarchs of Coâ—stantinople only Nestorius himself was Deposed for Heresie To enforce all this yet further the Writer of the Preface cites some passages out of the life of S. Chrysostom written by Palladius to shew what the Opinion of that Father was in his own Case and how far he was from insisting upon any Right he had to be acknowledged still as Patriarch when he was once Deposed For says he S. Chrysostom advised and charged the Bishops his Friends more than once That as they loved Christ none of them should leave his Church upon his account That they must keep Communion with his Deposers and not rend and divide the Church And he enjoyned some devout Women that attended there that as they hoped to obtain Mercy from God they should pay the same Service and Good will to his Successor by a fair Election that they had done to himself for the Church could not be without a Bishop But this notwithstanding upon examinatioâ— we shall find that S. Chrysostom was clearly of another mind than he is here represented to be of and that there is nothing in his Case which will in the least favour this Authors Doctrine I have already observed how much contrary S Chrysostom acted to these Principles in the case of Meletius and I shall now make it appear that he was evidently against them in his own The account Palladius gives us is Palâ—aâ—vit Châ—â—â— p. â—â— this S. Chrysostâ—m before his first Banishment when he perceived what violent Methods his Adversaries would take spoke to the forty Bishops who were met with him That as they loved Christ none of them would leave his Church upon his account For says he I am nâ—w ready to be offered and the time of my departure is at hand in S. Paul 's words I shall undergo many Sufferings I see and so depart this life And afterwards To me to live is Christ and to die is gain and am I better than the Patriarchs Ib. p. 68. than the Prophets and Apostles that I should be immortal From whence it is plain that he was very apprehensive that his Enemies had a design upon his life and that they would not suffer him to live much longer (c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Pallad pâ—g 68. For it was commonly reported that he was to be beheaded At this one of them expressed how much they were troubled for the Desolation and Confusion that would befal the Church when wicked Men should Usurp the Government of it Upon which he again exhorts them not to forsake their Churches For says he Preaching did not begin with me nor Ib. p. 69. will it end with me did not Moses die And was not Joshua appointed to succeed him Did not Samuel die And was not David anointed Jeremiah departed this life but did he not leave Baruch behind Elijah was taken up into Heaven but then did not Elisha Prophecy S. Paul was beheaded but did he not leave Timothy Titus Apollos and innumerable others behind him When he had said this â—ulysius Bishop of Apamea in Bithynia puts him in mind that if they retained their Churches they must be forced to Communicate and to Subscribe to the Deposing him to which S. Chrysostom answers that he would have them hold Communion to prevent a Schism in the Church but by no means to Subscribe for
worth our observation that notwithstanding it had been so customary for the Emperors in the Greek Church to Depose their Bishops yet after the Thirteenth Century and how long after we cannot tell it was matter of dispute in that Church whether they ought to Communicate with the new Bishops so that this Author 's whole Book is a contradiction to his very design in writing it for if they had constantly for so many Ages submitted to the Intruding Bishops as often as they were put up how came there at that time to be any doubt about it Or how could it then be necessary to prove with so much Pains and Formality that which he would make us believe had been the constant Practice of their Church in every Age If what he says had been true it could have needed no Proof to them and since he was forced to be at so much Pains to prove it to the Greeks themselves that this had ever been the Practice of their own Church it is a good Argument to us that it was not the Practice of it for if it had been all along practised no Man almost among them could have been ignorant of it since according to his own account there was scarce any Age but afforded too many Instances of the Removal of Bishops Considering all this I wonder that the learned Writer of the Preface should tell us that this Author is so unexceptionable a Judg to appeal to for I should be very sorry if any exception should lye against the Authors of our own time that does not lye against this Yes says he Surely no uncharitable Aspersions of time-serving courting Preferment or the like that might be cast upon any that should write now in this Cause can take place against this Author so remote from the present Age and Controversie I hope uncharitable Aspersions will take place neither against this Author nor any other but it is too much to persuade us that Clergy men were never swayed by Interest till now of late this would be too great a Satyr upon the present Age and would betray too great ignorance of all that are past for there is nothing more notorious than that mankind have had the same Passions and Frailties in all Times and if we were to search for Examples of Prejudice and Deceit and Persidiousness and all manner of ill Practices we should no where sooner find them than in those degenerate Ages of the Church And he tells us that our Author probably was one of the Bishops that assisted at the new Patriarchs Consecration for whose sake all this was written so that the Case was the same and the Controversie the same and the difference is only in Time and Place and perhaps in some other as inconsiderable Circumstances But I shall apply my self to the Greek Author and in Answer to him shall consider all that is said in the Preface to strengthen and support his Authorities from Antiquity AN ANSVVER TO A TREATISE OUT OF Ecclesiastical History c. I Shall follow our Author in his own way tho he does not always proceed according to order of Time which is no Argument of his Skill or Exactness but shews that he took up his Materials as he found them and placed them without any great Care or Method And to shew his Judgment we shall see he has sometimes brought Instances which are nothing to his purpose He begins with S. Chrysostom and Pag. 1. in the first place would insinuate that he was Uncanonically Ordained having received the Order of Deacon by the hands of Meletius who was placed by the Arians in the Sea of Eustathius Bishop of Sebastia in Armenia and was afterwards Translated to Antioch whilst Eustathius was yet living and he observes that Meletius notwithstanding was removed to Antioch by the joynt consent of both the Orthodox and Arian Bishops and that both S. Basil and S. Chrysostom were Ordained Deacons by him By all this we are given to understand that Eustathius of Sebastia had great wrong done him and that Meletius being besides made Bishop by the Arians could never become a lawful Bishop As to the first point Eustathius was condemned in two Synods for his ill Tenets and Practices He was first Socrat. l. 2. c. 43. Deposed by his own Father Eulalius Bishop of Caesarea in Cappodocia and was afterwards condemned in a Synod at Gangre in Paphlagonia because after he was Deposed he had done many things contrary to the Canons He had forbidden to Marry and commanded to abstain from Meats he had caused several Men and their Wives to depart from each other those who would not come to Church he had persuaded to Communicate in their Houses He made several Servants leave their Masters upon pretences of Piety He were the Habit of a Philosopher which was the misdemeanor his Father at first Deposed him for and had introduced a new kind of distinct Habit for all of his own Sect. He caused Women to be Shorn He declared against the set Fasts of the Church and appointed his Followers to Fast on Sundays He would not so much as admit any Prayers to be made in the Houses of married Persons and commanded all to avoid as a thing abominable the Benediction and Communion of a Priest who had a Wife tho he had married her before he entred into Orders and he both did and taught many other things of like nature Sozomen relates that besides his being Sozom. l. 4. c. 24. Deposed at Caesarea in Cappodocia and at Gangre he was Excommunicated by a Synod at Neocesaria in Pontus and Deposed by Eusebius Bishop of Constantinople for his Treachery in some business that he had been entrusted with and was Convicted of Perjury in a Synod of Antioch To all this I need not add that he was an Arian and renounced the Nicene Creed which he had once professed and that S. Basil often complains of his Basil Ep. 72 73 74. 78 79. 196. false and perverse dealing and besides says that it was reported of him that he had reordained some of his Proselites tho he could scarce believe it since no Heretick was ever known to dare to do it These certainly are Crimes which would justifie his being Deposed and it could be no fault in Meletius to preside in the See of a Bishop who for so just Reasons was condemned in several Synods and had had Anathema pronounced against his Doctrines The Second thing viz. Thâ—t Meletius was Consâ—â—râ—ted by the Arians was indâ—ed a great objection against him and had like to have been of very 〈◊〉 â—onsequence to the Church of Antiâ—â—h For tho Meletius had shewn himself a zealous and learned Assertor of that Orthodox Faith and was highly esteemed by the Orthodox Bishops who were mightily satâ—sfied with his Promotion to the See of Antioch yet there was a Party of Men who still retained a Prejudice against him upon the account of his Consecration and during his Banishment under
The Force of St Clement's Discourse seems to be this that if Moses was so indulgent and affectionate towards the People who had sinned so heinously against God this ought to be a powerful Motive to those who had been themselves criminal to resign up all particular Interests for the Peace of the Church and if it had been so usual for the most innocent and worthy Persons to sacrifice their own Safety and Honours to the publick it might much rather be expected from such as had themselves given the first occasion to the Divisions in the Church His Design is the same that Dionysius afterwards had in his Letter to Novation and that he might persuade them the more effectually to desist from their Pretensions he tells them that this was no more than the most worthy and heroick Persons had done before them not upbraiding them too severely with their past Miscarriages and presing it upon them as a Duty which in justice they were bound to and which was the least satisfaction they could make to the Church to forbear those Practices which had caused so much Disturbance but proceeding in a more gentle Method and yet in the mean time not failing to let them know that he required them not to resign any Right but to desist from an unjust Claim which was the least that could be expected of them but if it should seem grievous to Men who had been so long puffed up with vain Expectations and high Conceits of themselves to be thus humbled at last he acquaints them that they must consider that the Chastisements of God must be born with patience in much severer instances than this affliction which they had brought upon themselves and that however irksom it might now seem it would bring Peace and Joy to them in the end But if we understand St. Clement as Mr. Hody does to exhort those who were the lawful Presbyters to resign their Right rather than be the occasion through the Wickedness and Injustice of others towards them of Trouble and Disorder to the Church we must necessarily suppose some extraordinary Circumstances which made St. Clement advise them to this Condescension in their particular Case For it is not to be imagined that he should lay it down as a general Rule in all Cases that a Bishop or Presbyter whenever he is molested or dispossessed must give way to the Intruder for Peace sake but we must of necessity understand this Precept and Admonition in some such qualified sense as we do those Commands of our Saviour himself Whosoever shall Mat. 5. 39 40. smite thee on the right cheek turn to him the other also And if any man will sue thee at the law and take away thy coat let him have thy cloak also For to oblige all honest Men to suffer themselves to be abused and to give up their Rights of any kind for the sake of Peace and Quietness would be so far from being a means to procure Peace that it would be the readiest and most effectual way to all manner of Confusion in the World So that the utmost that this Quotation from St. Clement can amount to is only thus much that for some special Reasons and in some extraordinary Cases it would be an act of great Charity and worthy of a Christian for a Bishop to condescend so far as to recede from his own Right which affords nothing in proof of that Doctrin that this Greek Author is published to advance That although a Bishop was unjustly deprived neither he nor the Church ever made a Separation if the Successor was not an Heretick The Quotations from St. Irenaeus and from the Apostles Constitutions are excellent Cautions and Persuasions against Schisms in general but do not in the least concern the Cause before us And I heartily pray that either their Authority or any other may have the effect which it ought upon those who are most concerned seriously to take notice of them towards the preventing a Schism which seems to threaten the Destruction of the best Church in the World to the Ruin whereof nothing can more contribute than to teach that a Bishop when once deposed tho never so (e) Ego actus ab episcopatu quantumvis per injuriam summam cesso esse vester Episcopus c. Mr. Hody 's Preface unjustly ceases to be any longer Bishop of his See Which are Words now put into St. Chrysostom's Mouth but how much against all reason and probability has been already shewn In the Book it self where it is said that Meletius was p. 1. translated from Sebastia to Antioch Eustathius being yet in Banishment in the English Edition this Eustathius is supposed to be Eustathius late Bishop of Sebastia But in the Greek and Latin Edition Eustathius late Bishop of Antioch p. 4. and a Note is subjoyn'd to inform us that both Socrates and Sozomen say that Eustathius Bishop of Antioch lived till the Reign o◠Valens and that the Arguments which Baronius and Valesius bring to the contrary are not of weight enough to be set against the Authority of these two Historians Baronius argues that Eustathius of Antioch never lived to be recalled from Banishment by Jovian but died in exile under Constantius For if he had been recalled it cannot be supposed that no mention should be made of him in the Synod of Antioch which was held at that time by the Orthodox and besides neither Meletius nor Paulinus would have been suffered by the People of Antioch to be confecrated and reside there as their Bishop if he had been still living without their dividing into Parties about it since a great part of the Orthodox from their great Zeal and Affection for him were denominated Eustathians And if Eustathius had survived his Banishment there is no question but both Meletius and Paulinus would have resigned the See to him at his return For Meletius was put into that See at the earnest desire of the orthodox Bishops after the Banishment of Eustathius and he who was so condescending to Paulinus would have yielded much more to Eustathius himself For all the pretence that Paulinus could have was to be Bishop over a Party of Men who for the great Veneration they had for Eustathius were called Eustathians and who would not live in communion with Meletius because he had been ordained by Arians And it is absurd to think that Paulinus the chief of the Eustathian Party would retain his Bishoprick if Eustathius himself had been yet living unless perhaps we say that Eustathius had wholly relinquished his See to him and that he lived concealed at Constantinople or in some other place from the time of his first Banishment as Socrates and Sozomen say he did in the Reign of Valens till he was a second time banished But to put this out of all Controversie Theodorite expresly (f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theod. lib. 3. cap. 4. says that Eustathius was dead before Meletius succeeded him in