King and the Parliament may by that be encouraged to Depose our Bishops at pleasure that Supposition will be wild and extravagant For who can imagine that they can ever concurr for the Deprivation of a Bishop but upon a very extraordinary Occasion There is nothing can be more manifest than that this Inconvenience is not so likely to happen as those Evil's we endeavour to avoid These are certain and present That only possible But Thirdly should we grant what in reason cannot be granted that it is as likely to happen yet how great is the Difference Should the State here or in other Countries one single absolute Governor be supposed to be so very dissolute as to turn out frequently the Bishops of the Church without any just Cause yet who can look upon that Mischief to be comparable to that of a Schism and a Persecution What can the suffering of a few particular Men be when compared to the Peace and Tranquility of the whole Church besides Our Adversaries may be pleas'd to consider That it was not for the Bishops that the Church was establish'd but the Bishops were appointed for the sake of the Church It is not therefore the Welfare of the Bishops as the Bishops are these or those Men much less of some few particular Bishops but the Welfare of the whole Church in general that is chiefly to be regarded § 11. And thus I hope I have sufficiently made out what I proposed to prove That the submitting to a Bishop who is put into the place of another unjustly deposed by the Civil Autority is neither in it self a Sin nor liable to ill Consequences so likely to happen as the Evils we endeavour to avoid or if so likely to happen not so great and pernicious to the Church as those are From whence it necessarily follows That such a Submission is in it self highly reasonable Which was the first Proposition we proposed to be demonstrated I come now to the Second General proposed to be made out That such a Submission is agreeable to the Practice of the Antients § 12. But before I put an end to this Chapter and proceed to the Proof of this last Proposition there remains yet one thing more to be consider'd and that is the Imputation of Heresy which the learned Vindicator is pleas'd to fix upon us Any Opinion says the Vindicator on account of which Men separate from their Ecclesiastical Governors is Heretical tho' it be not in its own nature so And such an Opinion is not Heretical onely when Men designedly separate from others on that very account because they are not of that Opinion but also when they venture on such Practices on account of that Opinion wherein others cannot communicate with 'em for that very reason because they cannot join with 'em in that Opinion Then plainly the differing in such Opinions makes a difference of Communion unavoidable and therefore the Opinions themselves in such a Case as this is are Signals of different Communions which will come under the Charge of Heresy His meaning is that We maintaining this Opinion That the Civil Power has Autority to depose a Bishop for a Political Crime or if it has no such Autority when once it has deposed a Bishop it is lawfull to acknowledge the Successor and in consequence of that Opinion submitting now to the present Possessors are therefore Hereticks because He and his Party cannot join with us in that Practice as being of the contrary Opinion Here it comes into my mind what S. Ierom somewhere says That he that can with Patience hear himself call'd Heretick is no good Christian. This is true of those Heresies which were so in the Opinion of the Antients But in this Case we dare to be patient Ego tibi Haereticus tu mihi That 's all the Return we shall make The Vindicator in consequence of his Opinion that the Civil Autority has no power to depose a Bishop and that if a Bishop is so deposed his Successor ought to be rejected tho' otherwise never so worthy adheres to the Bishops deprived and disowns those that are put into their places In this Practice of the Vindicator we cannot join with him and for that very reason because we cannot join with him in his Opinion And what now follows from our Author's Notion of Heresy but that he himself is a Heretick It is nothing at all to our Purpose But for his own sake I shall here take upon me to add with a pace maximi Viri That this Notion of Heresy is a groundless and a fancyfull Notion That he may be properly call'd a Heretick who separates from the Church because the Church is not of his Opinion tho' the Opinion is not at all in its own nature Heretical I grant For there is a sort of Heresy which is not sinfull on the account of the Opinion maintain'd but onely because it is a separation from the Church But this I assert in opposition to what is laid down by the Vindicator That to all Heresy as the word is strictly taken to denote a Sin contradistinct to Schism it is necessary that there be an Opinion maintain'd which either the Church condemns or for which the Person that maintains it does of himself separate from the Church If it be not for any Opinion that the Vindicator is divided from the Church but onely for what is done by the Church he cannot be call'd in a strict sence a Heretick but only a Schismatick § 13. But to wave this Dispute as not at all material and to suffer the Vindicator if he pleases to enjoy his Notion What now is the Life he would make of it What is his Design in advancing it The Life he makes of it is this He alleges the aforesaid Heresy as a Reason for their Separation He tells us That we being guilty of Heresy they ought by our own Concessions to keep off from our Communion because we our selves acknowlege that Heresy is a just cause of Separation Tho' we should admit says he that the Author of the Baroccian Treatise had been successfull in all that he has attempted we may yet justify our adherence to the deprived Bishops and our Separation from our Adversaries opposite Altars and justify it too by the Doctrine of their own Author for even he permits a Separation where Orthodoxy is concern'd and expressly excepts this Case from the Number of those which he pretends to confute An Heretical Bishop he calls a false Bishop c. 'T is strange that the worthy and learned Vindicator should be so much out in his Logick as not to see the Inconsistency of what he alleges and to offer this as a reason for their not communicating with us If it is their not communicating with us that makes our Opinion Heretical and us Hereticks how do they refuse to communicate with us for this reason because we are Hereticks We could not be Hereticks according to the Vindicator's own
Notion 'till they had refused to communicate with us So dangerous a thing it is First to do a thing rashly and then to hunt for a Reason If this Plea of our Author is good I would very fain know how any Separation can be proved to be unlawfull Let our Author stand out a little and dispute with our old Dissenters He asks a Dissenter why he separates from the Church The Dissenter tells him 't is because the Church is Heretical But why Heretical Because she thinks it lawfull to oblige her Members to the use of Ceremonies and pursuant to that Opinion she actually imposes the use of ' em In the use of these Ceremonies says the Dissenter we cannot join with you and for that very reason because we cannot join with you in this Opinion That the Church has power to impose upon its Members the use of Ceremonies And because we cannot join with the Church in this Opinion and Practice upon that very account the Church is Heretical Thus according to our Author 's own Plea but the Plea would be vain and Illogical § 14. But this is not all We are not onely Hereticks upon that account but as the Vindicator contends we are Hereticks likewise as Heresy signifies an erring even in Fundamentals He affirms that our Opinion is a fundamental Error because as he says it is utterly destructive of the Church as the Church is a Society distinct from the State To maintain this Opinion That for Political Crimes a Bishop may be lawfully Depriv'd by the Civil Autority Or this That supposing he cannot be lawfully so depriv'd yet if he is deprived it is lawfull for Peace-sake to submit to his Successor How that is destructive of the Church as the Church is a Society I for my part cannot perceive To me 't is much more apparent that to advance this Opinion That a Bishop cannot be deprived by the Civil Autority for any Crime whatsoever is destructive of all Civil Government which as well as the Ecclesiastical is of God's Institution He therefore that advances that Notion advances a very dangerous Notion But it is not my Business at present to engage in these Disquisitions I shall onely make bold to ask the Vindicator a few Questions If he thinks that Opinion concerning the Power of the Magistrate a fundamental Heresy and enough to justify the present Separation how came it to pass that he did not leave the Communion of those whom he knew to be the Maintainers of that Opinion before this time I will ask him one Question more If the late Bishops should be again restor'd would he then refuse to communicate with those who advance that Opinion If he would not then it is certain that he does not think that enough to justify the present Separation One more and then I have done I desire to know if our Author knows none of his own Communion who themselves acknowledge the Power of the Supreme Civil Governor to depose a Bishop for Political Crimes 'T is strange if he should be ignorant of what every body knows And it is to be believ'd that the Fathers themselves of his own Communion at least some of 'em agree with us in this Opinion which the Church of England has all along to this time accounted Orthodox tho' the Vindicator is pleas'd to declare it a Heresy But enough and too much of these Matters We will leave our much honour'd Adversary to invent some other new Notion more consistent and more usefull for his Cause And will now proceed to enquire how Heretical our Forefathers were in thinking it lawfull to adhere to the present Possessor and in acting accordingly CHAP. II. That the Iewish High-priests who were put into the places of others unjustly Deposed by the Civil Autority were all along own'd and receiv'd as true High-priests An Account of all those High-priests from the Reign of King Solomon to the Destruction of Jerusalem The Instance of Abiathar and Zadok nicely examin'd The Practice of the Jews and God's Approbation of such High-priests a sufficient Warrant to us TO make it appear that the general Practice of the Antients throughout all Ages was agreeable to ours I shall first shew That the same was the Practice of the Iews throughout all Ages in reference to their High-priests whom S. Cyprian and others of the Fathers are wont to compare to our Bishops Secondly I shall shew That our Saviour himself and his Apostles acknowledged and communicated with the High-priests of the Iews as true High-priests tho' put into the places of others unjustly turn'd out by their Governors By which they seem to instruct us what we ought to doe in relation to our Bishops or High-priests And Thirdly I shall shew That the same has been all along the general Practice of the antient Christians § 2. I begin with the Iews But before I proceed to Examples I think it convenient to prevent an Objection that may possibly be made This perhaps may be the Plea of our Adversaries in answer to the Examples of the Jewish High-priests That the Office of a Bishop amongst us is of a nature much more Spiritual than the Office of those High-priests To that Plea I answer That he that considers the true and full Import of the Question now before us will find it to be no other than this Whether a Person duly invested with an Ecclesiastical Office of God's own Institution and Ordinance being Deposed by the Lay-power any other can lawfully succeed in that Office Now as to God's particular Institution and Appointment whatsoever otherwise the Difference may be which 't is needless for us to contend about it is certain that the Jewish High-priests were rather superior than inferior to our Bishops 'T was by God himself and that too in a very extraordinary manner that the Office of the High-priest was instituted and it was from God alone that he receiv'd his Autority If therefore a Person was accepted of by God as a true and real High-priest tho' put into the room of another Deposed by the Civil Autority then a Bishop likewise may be truly a Bishop and accordingly ought to be receiv'd tho' put into the place of a Bishop deposed by that Power To this I add That the Annual Expiation for the Sins of the whole People was to be perform'd by the High-priest This was the chief of the federal Rites of that Religion and that to which our Saviour's offering himself up a Sacrifice is particularly compared in the Epistle to the Hebrews And this they did ex opere operato so that it was of the greatest Consequence to the Iews to have this Divine Institution perform'd by one appointed to it by God And tho' no provision was made for Cases of Necessity yet Necessity was understood to be a provision for itself And it is certain these Annual Expiations were accepted of God till our Saviour's days for that is a certain Consequence of their being still in Covenant
pace maximi â—iri That this Notion of Heresy is a groundless and a fancyfull Notion That he may be properly call'd a Heretick who separates from the Church because the Church is not of his Opinion tho' the Opinion is not at all in its own nature Heretical I grant For there is a sort of Heresy which is not sinfull on the account of the Opinion maintain'd but onely because it is a separation from the Church But this I assert in opposition to what is laid down by the Vindicator That to all Heresy as the word is strictly taken to denote a Sin contradistinct to Schism it is necessary that there be an Opinion maintain'd which either the Church condemns or for which the Person that maintains it does of himself separate from the Church If it be not for any Opinion that the Vindicator is divided from the Church but onely for what is done by the Church he cannot be call'd in a strict sence a Heretick but onely a Schismatick § 13. But to wave this Dispute as not at all material and to suffer the Vindicator if he pleases to enjoy his Notion What now is the Use he would make of it What is his Design in advancing it The Use he makes of it is this He alleges the aforesaid Heresy as a Reason for their Separation He tells us That we being guilty of Heresy they ought by our own Concessions to keep off from our Communion because we our selves acknowlege that Heresy is a just cause of Separation Tho' we should admit says he that the Author of the Baroccian Treatise had been successfull in all that he has attempted we may yet justify our adherence to the deprived Bishops and our Separation from our Adversaries opposite Altars and justify it too by the Doctrine of their own Author for even he permits a Separation where Orthodoxy is concern'd and expressly excepts this Case from the Number of those which he pretends to confute An Heretical Bishop he calls a false Bishop c. 'T is strange that the worthy and learned Vindicator should be so much out in his Logick as not to see the Inconsistency of what he alleges and to offer this as a reason for their not communicating with us If it is their not communicating with us that makes our Opinion Heretical and us Hereticks how do they refuse to communicate with us for this reason because we are Hereticks We could not be Hereticks according to the Vindicator's own Notion 'till they had refused to communicate with us So dangerous a thing it is First to do a thing rashly and then to hunt for a Reason If this Plea of our Author is good I would very fain know how any Separation can be proved to be unlawfull Let our Author stand out a little and dispute with our old Dissenters He asks a Dissenter why he separates from the Church The Dissenter tells him 't is because the Church is Heretical But why Heretical Because she thinks it lawfull to oblige her Members to the use of Ceremonies and pursuant to that Opinion she actually imposes the use of ' em In the use of these Ceremonies says the Dissenter we cannot join with you and for that very reason because we cannot join with you in this Opinion That the Church has power to impose upon its Members the use of Ceremonies And because we cannot join with the Church in this Opinion and Practice upon that very account the Church is Heretical Thus according to our Author 's own Plea but the Plea would be vain and Illogical § 14. But this is not all We are not onely Hereticks upon that account but as the Vindicator contends we are Hereticks likewise as Heresy signifies an erring even in Fundamentals He affirms that our Opinion is a fundamental Error because as he says it is utterly destructive of the Church as the Church is a Society distinct from the State To maintain this Opinion That for Political Crimes a Bishop may be lawfully Depriv'd by the Civil Autority Or this That supposing he cannot be lawfully so depriv'd yet if he is deprived it is lawfull for Peace-sake to submit to his Successor How that is destructive of the Church as the Church is a Society I for my part cannot perceive To me 't is much more apparent that to advance this Opinion That a Bishop cannot be deprived by the Civil Autority for any Crime whatsoever is destructive of all Civil Government which as well as the Ecclesiastical is of God's Institution He therefore that advances that Notion advances a very dangerous Notion But it is not my Business at present to engage in these Disquisitions I shall onely make bold to ask the Vindicator a few Questions If he thinks that Opinion concerning the Power of the Magistrate a fundamental Heresy and enough to justify the present Separation how came it to pass that he did not leave the Communion of those whom he knew to be the Maintainers of that Opinion before this time I will ask him one Question more If the late Bishops should be again restor'd would he then refuse to communicate with those who advance that Opinion If he would not then it is certain that he does not think that enough to justify the present Separation One more and then I have done I desire to know if our Author knows none of his own Communion who themselves acknowledge the Power of the Supreme Civil Governor to depose a Bishop for Political Crimes 'T is strange if he should be ignorant of what every body knows And it is to be believ'd that the Fathers themselves of his own Communion at least some of 'em agree with us in this Opinion which the Church of England has all along to this time accounted Orthodox tho' the Vindicator is pleas'd to declare it a Heresy But enough and too much of these Matters We will leave our much honour'd Adversary to invent some other new Notion more consistent and more usefull for his Cause And will now proceed to enquire how Heretical our Forefathers were in thinking it lawfull to adhere to the present Possessor and in acting accordingly * An Answer to a Treatise out of Eccles History c. in the Preface * S. Cypr. Ep. 55. ad Anton. Ergo ille evangelii vindex ignorabat unum Episcopum esse oportere in Ecclesiâ Catholicâ says Cornelius Bishop of Rome in his Epistle to Fabius of Antioch Ap. Euseb. Hist. l. 6. c. 43. concerning Novatian To have two Bishops in one and the same City is adversum fas Sacerdotii singularis says Pacianus Epist. 3. ad Sympronianum Novatianum (a) Collat. Carthag 1. c. 16. (b) Theodoret Hist. Eccl. l. 5. c. 3. (c) And by the Synod of Sirmium to the Clergy and People of Rome in the Case of Felix and Liberius as Sozomen says l. 4. c. 15. but that Synod not was not Orthodox but Arian (a) Grâ—g Turon Hist. l. 10. c. 31. (b) Can. 4. (c) Can. 6.
a Person absolutely unqualified be imposed upon us for a Bishop we are not then to accept him If a Roman Decius would depose all our Bishops and not permit us to constitute others in their places that so he may destroy our Religion we are not then to regard either what he does or commands As the Romans upon the Martyrdom of Fabian tho' to avoid the Fury of a Persecution Propter rerum temporum difficultates we might possibly deferr the Election yet as soon as we thought it convenient we would choose a Cornelius Bishop notwithstanding the Tyrant's Decrees If an Heretical King Frazamund should command us not to Ordain any Bishops that so the Catholick Religion may of Course be rooted out and his Heresy onely prevail we would then no more value that Command than the Catholicks heretofore did but in spite of his Edict would get as many Bishops ordain'd as we thought convenient for the Church But how can our Case be compared with either of these Here is no forbidding Elections no deposing all Bishops in general no imposing unqualified Persons no destroying of Religion no advancing of Heresy The onely Question here is Whether Paul or Apollos may be follow'd when Cephas is in Prison and is render'd uncapable of acting as an Apostle Our Adversaries are resolv'd to have Cephas If they cannot have him they will neither have Christ. To us 't is altogether indifferent whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas as long as we have Christ. There is onely one Inconvenience that I can possibly foresee which can justly be charg'd on this Principle which we advance and that is this That by a Submission to the present Possessor the Civil Governor is like to be encouraged to tyrannize over the Church and to turn out such Bishops as he does not like whensoever he pleases tho' never so unjustly If that be the Objection of our Adversaries I answer First That the same Inconvenience is in all manner of Government By submitting to a Bishop who is put into the place of another whom a Synod has unjustly depos'd that Synod may be possibly encouraged to turn out others unjustly as many as it does not like tho' never so worthy Secondly That here in England it is not the Will of the Prince that can turn out a Bishop He has all the same Securities that another Subject can have and he cannot be deprived of his Bishoprick without a due Course of Law If they mean that the King and tâ—â— Parliament may by that be encouraged to Depose our Bishops at pleâ—â—ure 〈◊〉 Supposition will be wild and extravagant For who can imagine that they can ever concurr for the Deprivation of a Bishop but upon a very extraordinary Occasion There is nothing can be more manifest than that this Inconvenience is not so likely to happen as those Evils we endeavour to avoid These are certain and present That onely possible But Thirdly should we grant what in reason cannot be granted that it is as likely to happen yet how great is the Difference Should the State here or in other Countries one single absolute Governor be supposed to be so very dissolute as to turn out frequently the Bishops of the Church without any just Cause yet who can look upon that Mischief to be comparable to that of a Schism and aâ— Persecution What can the suffering of a few particular Men be when compared to the Peace and Tranquillity of the whole Church besides Our Adversaries may be pleas'd to consider That it was not for the Bishops that the Church was establish'd but the Bishops were appointed for the sake of the Church It is not therefore the Welfare of the Bishops as the Bishops are these or those Men much less of some few particular Bishops but the Welfare of the whole Church in general that is chiefly to be regarded § 11. And thus I hope I have sufficiently made out what I proposed to prove That the submitting to a Bishop who is put into the place of another unjustly deposed by the Civil Autority is neither in it self a Sin nor liable to ill Consequences so likely to happen as the Evils we endeavour to avoid or if so likely to happen not so great and pernicious to the Church as those are From whence it necessarily follows That such a Submission is in it self highly reasonable Which was the first Proposition we proposed to be demonstrated I come now to the Second General proposed to be made out That such a Submission is agreeable to the Practice of the Antients § 12. But before I put an end to this Chapter and proceed to the Proof of this last Proposition there remains yet one thing more to be consider'd and that is the Imputation of Heresy which the learned Vindicator is pleas'd to fix upon us Any Opinion says the Vindicator on account of which Men separate from their Ecclesiastical Governors is Heretical tho' it be not in its own nature so And such an Opinion is not Heretical onely when Men designedly separate from others on that very account because they are not of that Opinion but also when they venture on such Practices on account of that Opinion wherein others cannot communicate with 'em for that very reason because they cannot join with 'em in that Opinion Then plainly the differing in such Opinions makes a difference of Communion unavoidable and therefore the Opinions themselves in such a Case as this is are Signals of different Communions which will come under the Charge of Heresy His meaning is that We maintaining this Opinion That the Civil Power has Autority to depose a Bishop for a Political Crime or if it has no such Autority when once it has deposed a Bishop it is lawfull to acknowledge the Successor and in consequence of that Opinion submitting now to the present Possessors are therefore Hereticks because He and his Party cannot join with us in that Practice as being of the contrary Opinion Here it comes into my mind what S. Ierom somewhere says That he that can with Patience hear himself call'd Heretick is no good Christian. This is true of those Heresies which were so in the Opinion of the Antients But in this Case we dare to be patient Ego tibi Haereticus tu mihi That 's all the Return we shall make The Vindicator in consequence of his Opinion that the Civil Autority has no power to depose a Bishop and that if a Bishop is so deposed his Successor ought to be rejected tho' otherwise never so worthy adheres to the Bishops deprived and disowns those that are put into their places In this Practice of the Vindicator we cannot join with him and for that very reason because we cannot join with him in his Opinion And what now follows from our Author's Notion of Heresy but that he himself is a Heretick It is nothing at all to our Purpose But for his own sake I shall here take upon me to add with a
the Patriarchs Flavianus and Elias confuted Timotheus not known to them to be a Heretick when they communicated with him They are Honoured by the Church as Saints Page 70. CHAP. VII Flavianus Patriarch of Antioch being deposed by the Emperor Anastasius his Successor Severus is rejected by the Orthodox only because he was a Heretick Elias Patriarch of Jerusalem being violently deposed by the said Emperor his Successor John is immediately acknowleged by all the People though at the same time they hated him by the whole Church of Palaestine particularly the two great Abbots S. Sabas and S. Theodosius so famous for their Vndauntedness and Sanctity by Johannes Cappadox Patriarch of Constantinople and all the Greek Church by all the whole Church ever since those Times The Testimony of Photius Patriarch of Constantinople out of a Manuscript The old Patriarch Elias though so Tyrannically Deprived for adhering to the Orthodox Faith continues however to communicate with those who acknowledged his Successor Page 81. CHAP. VIII S. Silverius Bishop of Rome being violently deposed by Belisarius the Emperor Justinian's General his Successor Vigilius though put into his place so depriv'd though constituted by the bare Autority of Belisarius against the consent of the Clergy and though Silverius never gave up his Right is own'd and receiv'd by the 5th General Council and by all the Church as a true Pope He was generally own'd whilst Silverius himself was living Baronius's conjecture concerning his being again ordain'd after Silverius's Death confuted though for some time he communicated with Hereticks yet it was not known to the Orthodox who communicated with him Page 90. CHAP. IX Macarius Patriarch of Jerusalem being deposed by the Emperour Justinian his Successor Eustochius is own'd as a true Patriarch by the Fifth General Council and the whole Catholick Church After some time Eustochius himself is deposed by the Emperour and Macarius being restored is received by the Church According to our Adversaries Principles either Eustochius or Macarius after his Restauration was no true Patriarch yet the Church receiv'd both Page 97. CHAP. X. Eutychius Patriarch of Constantinople being violently deposed by the Emp. Justinian for refusing to subscribe to his Heresie John sirnamed Scholasticus is made Patriarch in his room After John was consecrated Patriarch Eutychius was condemned by an Assembly that consisted as well of Lay Lords as Bishops not only of Ecclesiasticks as the Vindicator contends He actually lays claim to the See despises the Sentence of his Iudges as null and invalid because they proceeded unjustly and uncanonically against him and Excommunicates them Notwithstanding all this his Successor because he prov'd Orthodox was receiv'd and own'd by all the Church as a true Patriarch He continu'd in the See near 13 years near 12 years under Justin the Younger an Orthodox Emp. He is own'd by the Church of Constantinople tho' at the same time Eutychius was exceedingly belov'd John an Orthodox Patriarch of Alexandria is consecrated by him For what reason Anastasius Patriarch by Antioch reprov'd the Patriarch of Alexandria for being ordain'd by him Anastasius did not refuse to communicate with him He is Honour'd by the Patriarch Photius with the Title of Saint Tho' Eutychius lookt upon his Deprivation as absolutely invalid and tho' he never resign'd but accounted himself still the rightful Patriarch yet he liv'd quietly and never endeavour'd to make a Division in the Church Dr. Crakanthorp's Opinion that Eutychius was deposed for being a Heretick confuted The Authority of the Life of Eutychius often quoted in this Chapter vindicated against the same Author Page 101. CHAP. XI S. Anastasius Senior Patriarch of Antioch being deposed without any Synod by the Emperor Justin Iunior tho' he never resign'd yet his Successor Gregory is own'd by all the Church He continued Patriarch till his Death for the space of 23 Years the old Patriarch Anastasius being all the while living Four Saints among those that lived at that time and communicated freely with him S. Symeon Stylites Iunior Pope Gregory the Great S. Eulogius Patriarch of Alexandria S. John Nesteutes Patriarch of Constantinople Pope Gregory communicates with him as Patriarch of Antioch tho' at the same time he declares Anastasius's Deprivation to be invalid and looks upon Anastasius to be the rightfull Patriarch S. Anastasius though deposed by the Lay-power and though he had never given up his Right yet never left the Communion of the Church Page 121. CHAP. XII S. Martin Pope of Rome being deposed without any Synod and banish'd by the Heretical Emperor Constans tho' he never resign'd yet Eugenius is chosen his Successor by the Clergy of Rome tho' at the same time they were zealous Assertors of the Orthodox Faith and had likewise a great love for S. Martin Eugenius is receiv'd and own'd by all as a true Pope and has been honour'd all along by the Church as a Saint S. Martin himself owns him as a true Pope and prays to God for him as such Page 128. CHAP. XIII Callinicus Patriarch of Constantinople being deposed without any Synod by the Emperor Justinianus Rhinotmetus his Successor Cyrus is receiv'd as a true Patriarch § 1. So likewise is Nicetas who was put into the place of the Patriarch Constantine deposed without any Synod by the Emperor Constantinus Copronymus § 2. Page 135. CHAP. XIV An Account of the Schism between Photius and Ignatius Patriarchs of Constantinople Photius who was put into Ignatius's place when deposed by the Emperor no such Person as his Enemies report him By how great a Party he was receiv'd The reason why some refused to acknowlege him was not so much because he was so constituted as because he was a Neophytus and was besides ordain'd by a Bishop Excommunicated and in their Iudgments stood himself Excommunicated at that time Ignatius professes that if Photius had been one of the Church i. e. if he had not been an Excommunicated Person at the time of his Consecration he would willingly have yielded to him Ignatius values the Counâ—ils that condemn'd him no more than he did the Lay-power The Vindicator in an Error concerning that Matter His Errors concerning the Council call'd the First and Second A New account of the reason of that Title His Error concerning the Greatness of the Synod of Rome call'd by P. Nicholas against Photius Photius after he was receiv'd by the Church and confirmed by a general Council is deposed by the bare Autority of the Emperor Leo yet his Successor Stephen is receiv'd by the Church Page 139. CHAP. XV. Nicolaus Mysticus Patriarch of Constantinople not deprived by a Synod as the Vindicator contends but by the Emperor Leo the Wise. § 1. Joseph Bishop of Brixia in Italy deposed without any Synod by King Besengarius yet his Successor Antony is own'd and receiv'd by the Church particularly by the Pope the Synods of Augspurg and Ravenna and continued in the See many years § 2. Basilius Camaterus and Nicetas Muntanes Patriarchs of
it are either not so mischievous to the Church or at least not so likely to happen as the Evils we endeavour to avoid That this was a Maxim of the Antients We shall easily find if we please but to cast our eyes back upon their Times and consider those Methods which were wont to be made use of in the Church We shall find that in all manner of Cases They always preferr'd the Peace and Tranquillity of the Church to all other Things the Essentials of Religion excepted There was no Custom or Law of the Church so sacred and inviolable but what they readily sacrificed whensoever Necessity requir'd to the Peace and Tranquillity of it If the exact Observation of the receiv'd Customs and Canons of the Church was not like to conduce to the present Peace and Tranquillity of it they were readily superseded and Necessity and Convenience became the onely Legislators To preferr a Rule of the Church to the Welfare and Prosperity of it and to stand to the Saying of a Father in Opposition to a Law of Necessity is a sort of Theological Pedantry which They were not guilty of They were wont to consider like truly Wise men the Circumstances and the Exigencies of the Times and they knew that those Customs and Canons of the Church which were proper in the Times of Peace could never indispensably oblige in Times of a different Complexion To prevent or to heal the Diseases of the Church they acted like Philosophers not like Empericks consider'd what ought to be done in this and that particular Case what was truly expedient not what had been prescrib'd when the Symptoms were not the same Tho' of all the General Councils there was none so rever'd as the Nicene and tho' among all the Canons of that Council there was none so Religiously and so Universally observ'd as that which makes it unlawfull for any one City to have two Bishops and altho' that had always been a Rule of the Catholick Church long before the time of that Council yet S. Augustine and all the other Catholick Bishops of Africa thought fit to propose that Expedient to their Adversaries the Donatists for the putting an End to their Schism And the same Expedient was proposed by Meletius Bishop of Antioch to the Anti-bishop Paulinus for the putting an End to that Schism that was between them Thus when Queen Chrodielde of France had made the Bishops Theodorus and Proculus Archbishops of Tours together the whole Gallican Church because they were both very old and so the Inconvenience of suffering it was not like to be so great as that of opposing the Queen very freely acknowedg'd ' em And tho' it is expresly forbidden by the aforesaid Council of Nice and likewise by the more antient Canons or Rules of the Church That one Bishop alone should Ordain another and three at least are positively requir'd by that Council how great soever the Necessity may be tho' it were moreover unlawfull for any one to be Ordain'd a Bishop without the Consent of the Metropolitan and a Bishop so Ordain'd is declar'd by that Council uncapable of governing as a Bishop Yet when Siderius had been ordain'd Bishop of Palebisca by the single Bishop of Cyrene a bold and resolute Man one who often transgress'd the Orders of his Superiors and that too without the knowledge of S. Athanasius the Metropolitan because of the badness of the Times it being in the Reign of the Arian Emperor Valens Athanasius allow'd of his Orders and because he was Orthodox he was so far from depriving him of his Bishoprick that he preferr'd him to a greater He yielded saith Synesius to the Necessity of the Times 'T is a Saying of the same Author himself a Bishop and a very great Man where he speaks concerning that Matter viz. in one of his Epistles to the Patriarch of Alexandria Theophilus In dangerous Times it is necessary not to observe Rules Tho' nothing was more unlawfull than to be made a Bishop Simoniacally or by the meer Force of the Lay-power and tho' as the Author of the Pontifical attests Silverius obtain'd the Popedom of Rome by both those unlawfull Means yet after he was Ordain'd the Peace of the Church requiring it he was own'd and receiv'd by all He had given a Summ of Money to the Tyrant Theodatus the King of the Goths and the Tyrant threaten'd that whosoever refus'd to consent to his Election should be punish'd with Death The Bishops however refused to subscribe and so he was made Pope without any consent of theirs But after he was Ordain'd says the Author of the Pontifical they subscrib'd for the sake of the Vnity of the Church and of Religion Tho' the Synod of C P. before whom the Patriarch Alexius was accused for his having been promoted to that Dignity by the bare autority of the Emperour without the Votes of the Clergy lookt upon his Promotion to be altogether unlawfull yet when he pleaded that he had Ordain'd many Bishops and that if they depriv'd him they must likewise deprive all those whom he had Ordain'd upon that bare Consideration because to Deprive so many was likely to occasion a great Disturbance in the Church they over-ruled the Accusation and determin'd nothing against him When Calendion was made Patriarch of Antioch by the Emperor Zeno and Ordain'd by Acacius the Patriarch of C P. tho' that was unlawfull by the Canons of the Council of Nice and directly contrary to the constant Custom of the Catholick Church yet because it was done as the Emperour and Acacius alleg'd to avoid Seditions in Antioch the Proceeding was approv'd of by Simplicius Bishop of Rome Tho' I wish says he that it had not been done yet I easily excused it because it was done through Necessity For that which is not voluntary i.e. that which is done onely for Convenience or Necessity 's sake cannot be imputed as a Fault These Examples and Autorities may serve to shew in general That there are no Laws or Customs of the Church so sacred but what our Wise Forefathers thought ought to be postpon'd to the present Welfare and Prosperity of it That the same was their Opinion in reference to our particular Case We shall hereafter shew in its due Place § 4. Our Proposition being thus establish'd on that sure Maxim acknowledg'd as has been shewn by the Antients That whatsoever is necessary for the Peace and Tranquillity of the Church that ought to be made use of provided that it is not in it self Sinfull and that the ill Consequences which may possibly attend it are either not so mischievous to the Church or at least not so likely to happen as the Evils we endeavour to avoid There are two Things which I am oblig'd to make out First That the Submitting to a Bishop put into the place of another unjustly Depos'd by the Civil Autority is not in itself
does not appear from these words that they thought it was a Sin to receive a Bishop when the other had been unjustly depos'd They onely seem to reflect upon their being forsworn so they afterwards say that Liberius pardon'd their Perjury and do not take notice of any other Sin pardon'd If they meant any more it is not at all to be wonder'd at in regard that Felix was ordain'd by the Arians and 't is certain that the said Presbyters were great Admirers of Lucifer Calaritanus and did not allow of a Bishop ordain'd by the Arians I add That whatsoever their Opinion might be it deserves not at all to be regarded since what they write is directly against Pope Damasus who was one of that Party And since when they wrote they were Schismaticks and had never any regard to the Peace and Tranquillity of the Church It appears in particular of the Historian Sozomen that he never knew any thing of our Adversary's Doctrine He says that when Liberius was restor'd he and Felix were Co-bishops of Rome But Felix says he after Liberius was join'd with him liv'd but a little while and Liberius alone govern'd the Church And this indeed happen'd by God's particular Providence lest the See of Peter should be dishonour'd by being govern'd at the same time by two Bishops which is both repugnant to the Vnity and against the Laws of the Church Tho ' this be not altogether true as to matter of fact yet from what he says it is easy to discover that this was his opinion That Felix was a true Bishop and that it was lawfull to acknowlege him as such Yet no one more tender of the Church's Honour than he as appears from these same Words Tho' we have been a long while in the Company of Pope Felix and the Reader I presume begins to grow weary of it Yet before we shake hands there must one thing more be clear'd 'T is said in the Pontifical that when Liberius was depos'd 't was by his own Advice that Felix was made Bishop in his room In this the Pontifical is follow'd by several of the Moderns in particular by Antoninus Archbishop of Florence who tells us That either Liberius resign'd and so together with others chose Felix for his Successor or else he made him his Vicar-General to supply his place in his absence If any thing of this be true then all that we have hitherto said makes nothing for our purpose It therefore highly concerns us to lay open the falseness of that Story We shall do it with a great deal of ease and that from these Considerations First That the Clergy of Rome when Liberius was about to leave the City engag'd themselves to him by an Oath not to accept of any other Bishop whilst he was alive and that when they did accept of Felix they were lookt upon as perjur'd This is expressly attested by S. Ierome the Presbyters Marcellinus and Faustinus and the Writer of the Register quoted by Onuphrius who all liv'd at that time Secondly That the same S. Ierome and likewise Ruffinus and Socrates and S. Athanasius himself expressly affirm and others plainly intimate that Felix was put into Liberius's Place by the Arians Thirdly That Liberius being agen restor'd Felix with all those of the Clergy that had submitted to him were with violence expell'd and Liberius enter'd Rome as a Conquerour So S. Ierome affirms and with him agree the Pontifical it self Theodoret Socrates Onuphrius's Register and the Presbyters Marcellinus and Faustinus To conclude That Story of the Pontifical that Liberius consented to the making of Felix Pope is by Baronius himself rejected as not in the least to be hearken'd to The falseness of it seems to have been discover'd by Platina himself and long before him by the Author of the Book De Vitis Pontificum ascrib'd to Luitprandus who tho' in other things they follow the Pontifical and say as that does that the Sacerdotes call'd a Synod and made Felix Bishop yet they leave out those words Cum Consilio Liberii I shall onely add That if Liberius gave his Consent to the Election of Felix then Felix was the rightfull and the onely Bishop Since therefore Liberius was again receiv'd and own'd by the Catholick Church when Felix was depos'd by the Emperour 's bare Autority we should if we granted that Story to be true onely change one Instance for another not lose one And thus have we done with the famous Example of Felix and Liberius An Example which our Adversaries as I found after this was written are so unhappy as to allege for their Cause They tell us that Felix was rejected by the Catholicks of Rome So the Author of the Further Account of the Baroccian MS. and the Author of the Vnity of Priesthood c. Once more says the latter and then most or all my Instances will be review'd and made good and that relates to Liberius and Felix Liberius was banish'd and Felix his Deacon was made Bishop in his stead A man saith Sozomen always reported to be firm to the Nicene Faith and as to matters of Religion altogether blameless And yet when Liberius was re-call'd from Banishment Felix was forc'd to retire nay the People of Rome tho' requested thereunto by the Emperour would not so much according to Theodoret as suffer him to remain Co-partner with Liberius in the Bishoprick From whence it is evident let Mr. Hody say what he will to the contrary that there is something more requir'd in a new Bishop than barely to be Orthodox 'T is impossible but these Authors must have known at least something of what has been above demonstrated But they did not think that it would be for their profit to let their Readers know all To confirm our Assertion says the Author first quoted that the Antients thought it unlawfull to submit to the present Possessor when the Predecessor was deposed by the Emperour you may command a great many Instances from the Churches of France Italy Asia Egypt and the like at present I shall onely produce that of Felix and Liberius I am sorry those many Instances of France Italy Asia Egypt c. were conceal'd by our Author What sort of Instances they are we may guess by that of P. Felix which as one of his best he thinks fit to produce When he shall be pleas'd to draw out the rest of his Artillery I dare engage they will either appear to be nothing at all but Wood or may easily be turn'd against him I expect the former in regard that to prove his Assertion he produces the Example of S. Hilary Bishop of Poictiers who says he was banish'd by the Emperour Constantius yet was still own'd as Bishop of that See And that he proves from those words of his in his Book which he wrote to the Emperour Licet in exilio permanens Ecclesiae adhuc per Presbyteros meos Communionem distribuens If S. Hilary
the Epistle of the Palaestine Monks to Alciso that in Palaestine not only the Patriarch Elias but all in general allow'd of Timotheus's Communion though at the same time they rejected the Communion of Severus who was put into the place of Flavianus as being a manifest Heretick The Synodical Epistles of Timotheus now Bishop of Constantinople are receiv'd here in Palaestine But the Deprivations of Macedonius and Flavianus are not approved off Neither are the Synodical Letters of Severus receiv'd here Here it ought to be observ'd how Famous and Flourishing for a vast number of Religious and Orthodox Persons Palaestine was at that time It appears from Cyrillus of Scythopolis that there flourished there at that time above Ten Thousand Orthodox Monks And in their Name it was that the Epistle above cited was written by the Abbots and Governors of the Monasteries How great and extraordinary Persons S. Sabas and S. Theodosius were who were two of the Chief of the Governors of the Monks at that time we shall shew in the following Chapter Concerning the State of Palaestine in general how generally Orthodox it was at that time I shall produce the Testimony of the Monks themselves The Monasteries say they which are here and Jerusalem it self and most other Cities together with their Bishops agree in the right Faith For all whom and for us we desire you most Holy and Honour'd Sir to Pray that we enter not into Temptation Least any one should suspect that therefore they of whom we have hitherto Spoken Communicated with Timotheus as true Bishop of Constantinople because Macedonius was Deceas'd I shall here add That it appears from Theophanes and Cedrenus That Macedonius died on the 25th year of the Emperor Anastasius i. e. A. D. 515. four years after he was Deposed And from Marcellinus Comes it likewise appears that he was alive in the Consulship of Senator or Cathodorus i. e. in the year 514. It is manifest therefore that his Successor Timotheus was acknowledged by all those above spoken of whilst he himself was still Living CHAP. VII Flavianus Patriarch of Antioch being Deposed by the Emperor Anastasius his Successor Severus is rejected by the Orthodox only because he was a Heretick Elias Patriarch of Jerusalem being violently deposed by the said Emperor his Successor John is immediately acknowleged by all the People though at the same time they hated him by the whole Church of Palaestine particularly the two great Abbots S. Sabas and S. Theodosius so Famous for their Vndauntedness and Sanctity by Johannes Cappadox Patriarch of Constantinople and all the Greek Church by all the whole Church ever since those Times The Testimony of Photius Patriarch of Constantinople out of a Manuscript The old Patriarch Elias though so Tyrannically Deprived for adhering to the Orthodox Faith continues however to Communicate with those who acknowleged his Successor 1. AFter what manner Flavianus Patriarch of Antioch of whom we have spoken so largely in the foregoing Chapter was Deposed Theophanes has given us a particular Relation He tells us I suppose from Theodorus Lector that there were sent to Antioch by the Emperor Anastasius to Depose him certain 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. Great Men or Magistrates who persuaded him to retire for some time from the City of Antioch pretending this Reason That thereby the Tumults which had been rais'd on his account might be appeas'd He according to their Advice retires and immediately they create the Heretick Severus Patriarch Though such were the Deprivation of Flavianus yet the only Reason assign'd by the Orthodox why they would not Communicate with Severus was his being a Notorious Heretick Concerning the Unlawfulness of Communicating with him because put into the place of another so unjustly and tyrannically Deprived not a word that I know of in any Author This happened in the year 513. 2. In a short time after viz. in the year 515. Elias Patriarch of Ierusalem was violently Deposed by the said Emperor Anastasius for refusing to Communicate with the Heretick Severus who was Constituted Patriarch of Antioch in the room of Flavianus Though Elias had been thus Vncanonically Deposed yet his Successor Iohn because he was Orthodox was readily acknowledged by all This is another of the Instances produced by the Author of the Baroccian Treatise who affirms what was easie to be known that the Names both of Iohn and Elias were written in the Sacred Diptychs of the Church of Ierusalem The said Emperor Anastasius says our Author Deposed and Banish'd the said Blessed Elias from the See of Jerusalem because he would not come over to his Heretical Opinion and Constituted John in his place whom because he publickly Preach'd the Orthodox Faith contrary to the Emperor's Expectation Elias in no wise rejected but continued in Communion with him And Theodosius and Sabas those Reverend Fathers the Heads and Chief of all the Monks of the Holy City visiting Elias in his Exile both loved him and Communicated with him as an injur'd Patriarch and yet they Communicated with John too that sate then in the Throne of Jerusalem as their Patriarch And therefore the Names both of John and Elias were written in the Sacred Diptychs of Jerusalem in these Words May the Memory of Elias and Iohn be Everlasting These Things i. e. all save what is said of the Diptychs are written in the Life of the Holy and great Sabas 'T will be worth ones while to Read what is said in Answer to this by my extreamly learned and most elegant Friend the Writer of the Latin Epistle Proximo loco says he è Vitâ sancti magnique Sabae mira profert Autor tuus sc. Anastasium è Sede Constantinopolitanâ primo Euphemium deinde Macedonium quibus successit Timotheus dejecisse Eliam Hierosolymorum Episcopum cum his omnibus communicasse ipsumque Eliam etiam fuisse condemnatum in exilium actum cui successit Johannes quorum nomina in Diptychis sed haec quoad nos gratis dicta sunt nam ubi latet illius Sancti Sabae Vita tunobis ostende interim an tale aliquid nunc in rerum Naturâ inveniri potest dubitari liceat nec benè quadrant quae narrat Autor nam Euphemius Macedonius ipse tandem Elias in longinquas distantes Regiones in exilium missi sunt Timotheus Iohannes qui sedes occuparunt non admodum suere vicini tamen hi câ—â—nes quà m amicissimè inter se communicant ex verbis Auctoris putares eos se mutuo visitâsse aut vtplurimum convixisse fateor quidem posse illos in locis maximè remotis dissitos inter se communicare sed si ad hoc probandum non obscuram Sabae vitam sed communicatorias eorum literas protulisset aliquid ad rem dixisset A strange heap of Simplicity and Ignorance He was not only ignorant before that there 's such a Life extant as that of S. Sabas but even after I had taken
People of the City as the Monks together with Anastasius the Governor and Zacharias the Governor of Caesarea and Hypatius the Emperors Sisters Son who was just then come to Ierusalem to offer up his Prayers and pay his Vows there for his Deliverance from the Captivity of Vitalianus when the Governor expected that the Emperors Will should be fulfill'd the Archbishop went up into the Pulpit together with Theodosius and Sabas the two Chief Governors of the Monks and all the People for many hours together cried out Anathematize the Hereticks Confirm the Council So they all 3 with one Voice Anathematiz'd Nestorius and Eutyches and Severus and Soterichus and all others that did not receive the Council of Chalcedon When they had thus done and were come down from the Pulpit the Abbot Theodosius turning to the People if any one says he does not receive the four Councils as the four Gospels let him be Anathema These things being done the Governor being affraid of so great a number of Monks fled away to Caesarea When the Emperor Anastasius had heard what was done he prepared to drive by force into banishment the Archbishop Iohn and Theodosius and Sabas who went up into the Pulpit together with him And his design being known at Ierusalem Theodosius and Sabas the Governors of the Monks those Champions of Piety those Defenders and Supporters of the Orthodox Faith call'd together all the Monks of the Desart and in the name of all together wrote a supplicatory Letter to the Emperor The Letter which they Wrote is recorded by Cyrillus It runs thus To the most Religious and Pious Emperor c. the request and supplication of Theodosius and Sabas Abbots together with the other Governors of Monasteries and all the Monks that are in Jerusalem the Desart round about it and that inhabit on Jordan c. They profess in that Epistle that they had all rather see their City Ierusalem burnt and destroy'd and besides that had all rather lose their Lives than accept of an Eutychian Patriarch and they humbly beseech the Emperor not to depose their most Holy Archbishop John Though in the beginning of the Epistle there is mention only of the Monks yet all the Inhabitants of Palaestine are supposed to be included as may be gathered from these words in the Epistle All we the Inhabitants of this Holy Land When the Emperor receiv'd it he was engaged in the War with Vitalianus and on that account he desisted from his purpose of deposing the Patriarch Iohn Thus Iohn says Cyrillus escap'd being deposed from the Throne of Jerusalem For seven Years and nine Months i. e. as long as he lived he continu'd Bishop of Ierusalem acknowleged unanimously by all and that too though for three years of that time Elias the old Bishop was still living If victor Tununensis may be believ'd Iohn continued Bishop of Ierusalem no less than nineteen years for he says that he died and that Peter succeeded him in the consulship of Belisarius which falls in with the eighth and ninth year of the Emperor Iustinian but that is a very great mistake no less than that other of his concerning Iohn's Anathematizing the Council of Chalcedon and receiving Severus into Communion which he says he did when first he was made Bishop As Victor being an African knew nothing exactly of what was done amongst the Greeks so 't was natural for him to suppose that Iohn actually did so since he was put into the place of another deposed for refusing to do it Whether since the beginning of Christianity there was ever a Church more flourishing and zealous for the Orthodox Faith than that of Ierusalem was at this time may very well be doubted And how can we imagine that so Stout and so Orthodox a Church as that of Ierusalem then was would have ever submitted to the Successor of Elias if it had not been their Opinion that they might lawfully do it They that could oppose the Emperor so bravely and courageously as they did they that declare boldly to him that they had all rather lose their lives than submit to an Eutychian Bishop are so far from rejecting their Patriarch Iohn because put into the place of another unjustly deposed that they take no notice at all of it are so far from deposing him themselves for being so constituted that they supplicate the Emperor not to depose him After so great a demonstration of their Stoutâ—â—ss and their Zeal for the Orthodox Faith as the foregoing Relation afâ—â—ords 't would be needless to remind the Reader that likewise before that time when Elias was their Patriarch they pronounced an Anathema upon even the Emperor himself 't would be needless to tell him of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Theophanes the Chronographer speaks of who a little before this time being excited as he says by a divine Real came from Palaestine to Constantinople to oppose in disputation the Heretick Severus It is needless likewise to heap up together those many glorious Epithets which are bestow'd by the Antients on the two great Abbots St. Sabas and St. Theodosius 'T is needless to remind the Reader of those Praises that are given them by Cyrillus in the place above quoted Theodosius and Sabas those Champions of Piety those Defenders and Supporters of Orthodoxy 'T were needless to tell him that they are call'd by Isaac Catholicus Theodosius and Sabas the most holy and by the Author of the Synodicon Theodosius and Sabas the Supporters of the Orthodox and the fixt Stars of the Faith by which the Monks of the Desart and their Governors were enlightned I shall not mention that S. Sabas is called by Symeon Archbishop of Thessalonica in his questions not yet published the most divine Sabas and a Father and Doctor of the Church I pass by likewise those several places of his life where he is called the Sanctified the illuminated Sabas that Angel on Earth that heavenly Man Sabas the Patron of Orthodoxy the Opposer of false Doctrine c. as likewise another place where he and Theodosius are both together styl'd true Sons of Light and Sons of Day Men of God faithful Servants the Pillars and Supporters of Truth men of excellent desires These are very extraordinary Encomiums and from them it is apparent how great and extraordinary Persons both for Piety and Orthodoxy Theodosius and Sabas were I shall not mention how great a Veneration and Honour the greatest Persons of S. Sabas's own Age were wont to pay him how the Archbishop and all the People went out to meet him when he came to Caesarea how the Emperor Iustinian when he came to Constantinople sent his own Yachts to receive him how the Patriarch of Constantinople together with other great Bishops went out with the Yachts to meet him how when he came into the Presence the Emperor ran to salute him how he kist his head shed tears for
But then on the other side how Eustochius Patriarch of Ierusalem should be deposed on that account by the Emperour when none of the other Foreign Patriarchs were deposed and at least a Year or two before even the Patriarch of Constantinople himself was deposed I cannot easily imagine And besides it is likely that Eustratius who lived at Constantinople in those times and wrote the Life of the Patriarch Eutychius who was deposed for not subscribing to the Emperour's Doctrine would have spoken somewhere of the Patriarch of Ierusalem his having been deposed on the same account especially since he mentions that Anastasius Patriarch of Antioch was on that account extremely persecuted by the Emperour and upon the brink of Deprivation As for the Reason given by Theophanes that I am sure is false For it appears by the express Testimony of Cyrillus Scythopolitanus that the Neolauritanâ— were expell'd by the Emperour 's own Command because they refused to anathematize Origen Didymus and Evagrius according to the Decree of the Fifth General Council Macarius being restored upon the Ejectment of Eustochius was own'd and receiv'd by all as Patriarch of Ierusalem and enjoy'd the Honour till he died which was four Years Iohannes Moschus tells us of one Iulianus a Monk of Palaestine who doubted for some time whether or no he ought to communicate with the Archbishop Macarius and went to S. Symeon Stylites the latter of that Name to ask his Advice desiring to know how he ought to carry himself towards a Brother who had committed Fornication and towards one who by Oath had engaged himself to his Party S. Symeon answer'd Do not separate thy self from the holy Church for by the grace of our Lord Iesus Christ the Son of God she is not amiss The reason why the Monk scrupled to communicate with Macarius was because he thought him an Origenist Whether it happen'd before he was deposed or after he was restored is uncertain I believe it was before he was deposed In the Life of S. Gregory Bishop of Agrigentum he is honour'd with the Title of Saint is said to have the Gift of Prophecy and to have ordain'd S. Gregory Deacon But this Life tho' it be quoted by Baronius c. as true is nothing but the Forgery of Metaphrastes and all those Stories are notorious Lyes For in the same Life it is said that S. Gregory was made Bishop of Agrigentum after the time of the Sixth General Council in which the Patriarchs Sergius Pyrrhus Paulus and Cyrus were condemn'd as Monothelites which Council was call'd in the Year 681 near 120 Years after the Death of our Patriarch Macarius However from hence we may gather what opinion Posterity had of that Patriarch Concerning any Schism occasion'd by Macarius when he was deposed or afterwards by Eustochius not a word in any Author CHAP. X. Eutychius Patriarch of Constantinople being violently deposed by the Emp. Justinian for refusing to subscribe to his Heresie John sirnamed Scholasticus is made Patriarch in his room After John was consecrated Patriarch Eutychius was condemned by an Assembly that consisted as well of Lay-Lords a Bishops not only of Ecclesiasticks as the Vindicator contends He actually lays claim to the See despises the Sentence of his Iudges as null and invalid because they proceeded unjustly and uncanonically against him and Excommunicates them Notwithstanding all this his Successor because he prov'd Orthodox was receiv'd and own'd by all the Church as a true Patriarch He continu'd in the See near 13 years near 12 years under Justin the Younger an Orthodox Emp. He is own'd by the Church of Constantinople tho' at the same time Eutychius was exceedingly belov'd John an Orthodox Patriarch of Alexandria is consecrated by him For what reason Anastasius Patriarch of Antioch reprov'd the Patriarch of Alexandria for being ordain'd by him Anastasus did not refuse to communicate with him He is Honour'd by the Patriarch Photius with the Title of Saint Tho' Eutychius lookt upon his Deprivation as absolutely invalid and tho' he never resign'd but accounted himself still the rightful Patriarch yet he liv'd quietly and never endeavour'd to make a Division in the Church Dr. Crakanthorp's Opinion that Eutychius was deposed for being a Heretick confuted The Authority of the Life of Eutychius often quoted in this Chapter vindicated against the same Author IN the Year 565 Eutychius Patriarch of Constantinople whom I mention'd in the foregoing Chapter was deposed by the Emp. Iustinian and Iohn formerly an Advocate afterwards a Presbyter of Antioch whom resided at that time at Constantinople as Apocrisiarius for the Church of Antioch the same with him whose Collection of Canons is extant in the Bibliotheca Iuris Canonici was advanced to the See This Instance the Author of our Baroccian Treatise takes notice of In the Reign says he of the Emp. Justinian Eutychius of Amasia being constituted Patriarch of Constantinople a Man holy and belov'd of God was unjustly deposed and expell'd the City and John was preferr'd to the See But Eutychius did not upon that account separate himself from the Communion of John and both therefore were receiv'd by the Church The Collector of the Synodicon tells us that the Emp. called a Synod and deposed Eutychius because he refused to subscribe to the Doctrine maintain'd by that Synod i. e. because he refus'd to subscribe to the Heresie of the Aphthartodocetae who thought our Saviour's Humane Nature incorruptible which the Emp. and his Synod maintain'd The truth is this He was first banished by the Emp. and after his Successor was ordain'd he was condemn'd by a Synod or Assembly consisting partly of Bishops and partly of Lay-Lords Evagrius passes over this business too slightly and only says That he was expell'd for what or whether by a Synod or not he does not acquaint us That he was depos'd by the Emperor is expressly asserted by Victor Tun. Theophanes Nicephorus the Patriarch Glycas Zonaras Cedrenus Nicephorus Callisti and so the Emp. Basilius intimates of whom not one makes any mention of a Synod A particular and exact account of the whole matter we have in his Life which was written by Eustratius commonly but erroneously call'd Eustathius who was one of his Presbyters and a constant Attendant upon him both before and in his Banishment The Life is extant not onely in Latin as the Vindicator believ'd but likewise in Greek And this is the Account he gives us The Emp. says Eustratius desired him to subscribe to the Doctrine of the Aphthartodocetae which when he refused to do he was perswaded by some of his Nobles and by certain Priests to depose him which accordingly he did For on S. Timothy 's Day as Eutychius was officiating in the Church of Hormisdas his Palace was violently enter'd by a Captain together with his Souldiers who seiz'd his Servants designing to make 'em witness something against him that he
the Author of which could not but be very well acquainted with the Diptychs of the Church of Constantinople He affirms That both John and Eutychius were received by the Church To this I add That Photius the Patriarch of Constantinople who flourished in the Year 858 calls our Patriarch Iohn Saint John or John of blessed Memory Archbishop of Constantinople He was not onely own'd and receiv'd as a true Patriarch but was likewise accounted a very worthy and a holy Patriarch Eighthly That there was no Schism no Division in the Church on Eutychius's account and that he himself tho' he had never resign'd but always lookt upon himself as the rightful Patriarch of Constantinople did nevertheless continue in Communion with the Church I gather from hence That when Iohn was dead the Emperors Iustin and Tiberius or the Emperor and Caesar having decreed that Eutychius should be restor'd sent Messengers away to Amasea commanding 'em to bring him away to Constantinople to be restored to his Dignity whether willing or unwilling So Eustratius tells us expressly So quietly did the good Man live in his Monastery at Amasea so far from heading a Schism as an Anti-patriarch that the Emperors did not know whether he was willing to be restor'd or not And thus is confirm'd what the Author of the Baroccian Treatise asserts That Eutychius did not separate from John 's Communion We must not bid Farewell to our Patriarch Eutychius till we have clear'd him from a Charge and Accusation which Dr. Crakanthorp has laid against him The Doctor in his Treatise concerning the Emperor Iustinian in which he endeavours to clear that Emperor from the Imputation of Heresie against Cardinal Baronius would needs perswade us That the Patriarch Eutychius was not deposed by Iustinian because he refused to subscribe to the Doctrine of the Aphthartodocetae but for being an Origenian Heretick That Eutychius had written a Book concerning the Resurrection in which he contended that our Bodies after the Resurrection will not be properly Flesh and Blood but Aereal and Impalpable the Doctor proves from the Testimony of Pope Gregory the Great who says That he himself disputed against him If this were the reason of Eutychius's being expell'd then all that we have alleged concerning the Church's acknowleging his Successor Iohn will be of no force because Eutychius was a Heretick and consequently his Expulsion just whatsoever that Authority was by which he was expell'd I am therefore concern'd to confute this pretended Reason And 1. I answer That the Book which Eutychius publish'd concerning the Resurrection was so far from being publish'd before the time of his Expulsion that it was not publish'd till after his Restauration This plainly appears from what Pope Gregory says He tells us that when he resided at Constantinople as Legate from Pope Pelagius in the Reign of the Emperor Tiberius he had a great Dispute with the Patriarch Eutychius about that Subject and Tiberius having heard the Arguments of both sides was about to condemn the Patriarch's Book to be burnt Which had been done says he had not the Patriarch died If Eutychius had been expell'd by Iustinian for that Opinion which he then maintain'd it cannot be suppos'd but that Pope Gregory would have given an account of it 2. That Eutychius was deposed by Iustinian because he refused to subscribe to the Doctrine of the Aphthartodocetae is unanimously asserted by all the Greek Authors who have mention'd the Reason of his Deprivation by the Author of the Synodicon Glycas Zonaras Theophanes Ioel Nicephorus Callisti and Eustratius the Writer of his Life Neither can it be supposed that Eustratius assign'd a false Reason that so he might salve his Reputation and conceal his Opinions concerning the Resurrection for had he beed deposed for maintaining any Heretical Opinion there was no one but must have known it and Eustratius would never have been so impudent as to give a false Reason before that great Congregation to whom he spoke his Oration Neither does he conceal the Imputation which was by some fixt upon him concerning the Resurrection After an account given of his Death he takes an accasion to speak of that Imputation and he says it was occasion'd by his being not rightly understood To this I add That it plainly appears from Evagrius who liv'd and flourish'd at that time that the Emperor Iustinian did just before his death endeavour to advance the Doctrine of the Aphthartodocetae and publish'd a Decree concerning it requiring the Bishops to subscribe to it who generally answer'd as he tells us that they would follow the Example of Anastasius Patriarch of Antioch who says he could never be perswaded to subscribe and had therefore been deposed if the Emperor had not suddenly died 'T is a weak and injudicious Plea that of Crakanthorp that Evagrius is guilty of several Errors For let it be granted that he is and what Historian is not yet how could he erre in a thing of that nature Since he flourish'd at that time and was within a few years after Assessor to Anastasius's Successor since he flourish'd at Antioch when Anastasius himself was Patriarch How could he be mistaken in such a thing as that He intimates that he had read the Speech which Anastasius had composed and spoken to the People of Antioch when he understood that the Emperor design'd to banish him And he tells us that Anastasius wrote Epistles concerning the Emperors Doctrine to the Monks of Syria who had desired to know his Judgment Among many other things that may be added I shall onely mention that as has been already observ'd in the foregoing Chapter there is extant in the Tomes of the Councils an Epistle from Nicetius Bishop of Trier to the Emperor Iustinian concerning his Lapse And in that Epistle Nicetius mentions that the Emperor had for the Advance of his Erroneous Doctrine banish'd certain Bishops alluding plainly to the Patriarch Eutychius's Expulsion Dr. Crakanthorp finding that the Life of Eutychius made directly against his Opinion concerning the Emperor Iustinian his never falling into Heresie endeavours to prove that that Life was not written by one that liv'd at that time but forged by some late Monk and of this Opinion is one of the Answerers of the Baroccian Treatise he whose words I but now produced convinced by Crakanthorp's Arguments I need not oppose this Opinion that so it may be proved that Iustinian fell into Heresie and that Eutychius was deposed for refusing to subscribe to that Heresie for these things I have sufficiently demonstrated from the concurrent Testimonies of other Writers But because I have produced the Authority of that Life for several other things which cannot be proved from other Authors I am therefore obliged to clear the Authority of it from the Objections alleged against it The chief Argument brought against it by Crakanthorp is its making Eutychius to continue above 12 Years in Banishment whereas it appears says he
the Heretical Vsurper Basiliscus but because he was a Heretick and a Parricide § 4. Jo. Talaias the Orthodox Patriarch of Alexandria being deposed by the bare Autority of the Emperour Zeno though he still laid claim to the See yet Petrus Mongus his Successor is acknowleged by all that accounted him Orthodox by Acacius and Fravitas Patriarchs of Constantinople by Martyrius Patriarch of Jerusalem by almost all the Bishops of the Eastern Church That they who refused to communicate with Mongus viz. the Western Bishops the Bishops of Dardania c. did it only because they thought him a Heretick That Euphemius Patriarch of Constantinople communicated with him till he found him to be a Heretick then forsook his Communion Pope Simplicius when he heard that Talaias was to be deposed was well enough satisfied till he understood that Mongus whom he accounted a Heretick was design'd for his Successor Whether Orthodox Bishops unjustly ejected by the Emperor be restor'd or new Orthodox Bishops be created he values not he only desires that they that are made Bishops should be Orthodox Pope Felix III. not at all concern'd for Talaias's being deprived without a Synod only dislikes that one whom he accounted a Heretick was constituted in his place § 5. Calendion Patriarch of Antioch being deposed by the Emperor Zeno without any Synod the Orthodox Bishops viz. Pope Felix III. Quintianus Asculanus Justinus Siculus Acacius Constantinopolitanus Antheon Arsinoites Faustus Apolloniates Pamphilus Abydensis Asclepiades of Trallium c. refuse to communicate with his Successor Petrus Gnapheus only because he was a Heretick take no notice of his being constituted in the room of one Unsynodically deposed and are ready to communicate with him as a true Patriarch of Antioch if he will but forsake his Heresy Page 57. CHAP. VI. Macedonius Patriarch of Constantinople being violently Deposed by the Heretical Emperor Anastasius his Successor Timotheus is acknowleged by all that accounted him Orthodox though at the same time they profess'd that the Deprivation of Macedonius was unjust and could never be induced by any Terrors to subscribe to it viz. by Flavianus Patriarch of Antioch Elias Patriarch of Jerusalem the Abbot of the Monastery of Studium the Orthodox People of Constantinople by the great Abbots of Palaestine S. Sabas and S. Theodosius and by all Palaestine in general at that time exceedingly flourishing for its zealous Profession of the Orthodox Faith The Calumnies of the Vindicator concerning the Apostacy of the Patriarchs Flavianus and Elias confuted Timotheus not known to them to be a Heretick when they communicated with him They are Honoured by the Church as Saints Page 70. CHAP. VII Flavianus Patriarch of Antioch being deposed by the Emperor Anastasius his Successor Severus is rejected by the Orthodox only because he was a Heretick Elias Patriarch of Jerusalem being violently deposed by the said Emperor his Successor John is immediately acknowleged by all the People though at the same time they hated him by the whole Church of Palaestine particularly the two great Abbots S. Sabas and S. Theodosius so famous for their Vndauntedness and Sanctity by Johannes Cappadox Patriarch of Constantinople and all the Greek Church by all the whole Church ever since those Tunes The Testimony of Photius Patriarch of Constantinople out of a Manuscript The old Patriarch Elias though so Tyrannically Deprived for adhering to the Orthodox Faith continues however to communicate with those who acknowleged his Successor Page 81. CHAP. VIII S. Silverius Bishop of Rome being violently deposed by Belisarius the Emperor Justinian's General his Successor Vigilius though put into his place so depriv'd though constituted by the bare Autority of Belisarius against the consent of the Clergy and though Silverius never gave up his Right is own'd and receiv'd by the 5th General Council and by all the Church as a true Pope He was generally own'd whilst Silverius himself was living Baronius's conjecture concerning his being again ordain'd after Silverius's Death confuted though for some time he communicated with Hereticks yet it was not known to the Orthodox who communicated with him Page 90. CHAP. IX Macarius Patriarch of Jerusalem being deposed by the Emperour Justinian his Successor Eustochius is own'd as a true Patriarch by the Fifth General Council and the whole Catholick Church After some time Eustochius himself is deposed by the Emperour and Macarius being restored is received by the Church According to our Adversaries Principles either Eustochius or Macarius after his Restauration was no true Patriarch yet the Church receiv'd both Page 97. CHAP. X. Eutychius Patriarch of Constantinople being violently deposed by the Emp. Justinian for refusing to subscribe to his Heresie John sirnamed Scholasticus is made Patriarch in his room After John was consecrated Patriarch Eutychius was condemned by an Assembly that consisted as well of Lay Lords as Bishops not only of Ecclesiasticks as the Vindicator contends He actually lays claim to the See despises the Sentence of his Iudges as null and invalid because they proceeded unjustly and uncanonically against him and Excommunicates them Notwithstanding all this his Successor because he prov'd Orthodox was receiv'd and own'd by all the Church as a true Patriarch He continu'd in the See near 13 years near 12 years under Justin the Younger an Orthodox Emp. He is own'd by the Church of Constantinople tho' at the same time Eutychius was exceedingly belov'd John an Orthodox Patriarch of Alexandria is consecrated by him For what reason Anastasius Patriarch of Antioch reprov'd the Patriarch of Alexandria for being ordain'd by him Anastasius did not refuse to communicate with him He is Honour'd by the Patriarch Photius with the Title of Saint Tho' Eutychius lookt upon his Deprivation as absolutely invalid and tho' he never resign'd but accounted himself still the rightful Patriarch yet he liv'd quietly and never endeavour'd to make a Division in the Church Dr. Crakanthorp's Opinion that Eutychius was deposed for being a Heretick confuted The Authority of the Life of Eutychius often quoted in this Chapter vindicated against the same Author Page 101. CHAP. XI S. Anastasius Senior Patriarch of Antioch being deposed without any Synod by the Emperor Justin Iunior tho' he never resign'd yet his Successor Gregory is own'd by all the Church He continued Patriarch till his Death for the space of 23 Years the old Patriarch Anastasius being all the while living Four Saints among those that lived at that time and communicated freely with him S. Symeon Stylites Iunior Pope Gregory the Great S. Eulogius Patriarch of Alexandria S. John Nesteutes Patriarch of Constantinople Pope Gregory communicates with him as Patriarch of Antioch tho' at the same time he declares Anastasius's Deprivation to be invalid and looks upon Anastasius to be the rightfull Patriarch S. Anastasius though deposed by the Lay-power and though he had never given up his Right yet never left the Communion of the Church Page 121. CHAP. XII S. Martin Pope of Rome being deposed without any Synod
with Death The Bishops however refused to subscribe and so he was made Pope without any consent of theirs But after he was Ordain'd says the Author of the Pontifical they subscrib'd for the sake of the Vnity of the Church and of Religion Tho' the Synod of C P. before whom the Patriarch Alexius was accused for his having been promoted to that Dignity by the bare autority of the Emperour without the Votes of the Clergy lookt upon his Promotion to be altogether unlawfull yet when he pleaded that he had Ordain'd many Bishops and that if they depriv'd him they must likewise deprive all those whom he had Ordain'd upon that bare Consideration because to Deprive so many was likely to occasion a great Disturbance in the Church they over-ruled the Accusation and determin'd nothing against him When Calendion was made Patriarch of Antioch by the Emperor Zeno and Ordain'd by Acacius the Patriarch of C P. tho' that was unlawfull by the Canâ—ns of the Council of Nice and directly contrary to the constant Custom of the Catholick Church yet because it was done as the Emperour and Acacius alleg'd to avoid Seditions in Antioch the Proceeding was approv'd of by Simplicius Bishop of Rome Tho' I wish says he that it had not been done yet I easily excused it because it was done through Necessity For that which is not voluntary i.e. that which is done onely for Convenience or Necessity 's sake cannot be imputed as a Fault These Examples and Autorities may serve to shew in general That there are no Laws or Customs of the Church so sacred but what our Wise Forefathers thought ought to be postpon'd to the present Welfare and Prosperity of it That the same was their Opinion in reference to our particular Case We shall hereafter shew in its due Place § 4. Our Proposition being thus establish'd on that sure Maxim acknowledg'd as has been shewn by the Antients That whatsoever is necessary for the Peace and Tranquillity of the Church that ought to be made use of provided that it is not in it self Sinfull and that the ill Consequences which may possibly attend it are either not so mischievous to the Church or at least not so likely to happen as the Evils we endeavour to avoid There are two Things which I am oblig'd to make out First That the Submitting to a Bishop put into the place of another unjustly Depos'd by the Civil Autority is not in itself Sinfull And 2dly That the ill Consequences to which it is liable are either not so mischievous to the Church or at least not so likely to happen as the Evils we endeavour to avoid § 5. First It is not in it self Sinfull For if it is so it must be so for one or more of these following Reasons Either first because it is forbidden by some express Law of God Or 2dly because it makes us Accomplices in the Injustice Or 3dly because of the Oath of Canonical Obedience which the inferior Clergy have taken to their Bishop and the inferior Bishops to their Archbishop Or lastly because as one of our Adversaries the learned Vindicator contends such a Bishop as is placed in the room of one Deposed by the Civil Autority is in reality no Bishop These Objections I shall consider distinctly § 6. First It is not against any Law of God For as to our Case the Scripture is altogether silent 'T is true it Commands us to be obedient to our Governors and that Command reaches as well to the Spiritual as to the Temporal But when there are two that stand Competitors and both claim our Obedience to which of those two our Obedience ought to be paid it leaves to our Wisdom to determine § 7. Neither 2dly does it make us Accomplices in the Injustice For if a Landlord be unjustly and invalidly dispossess'd of his Estate by an Incompetent Autority Who thinks the Tenant an Accomplice in the Injustice because he pays his Rent to the present Possessor Should the Clergy refuse to submit to the Bishops in possession it could onely serve to draw down Ruin upon themselves It cannot restore those whom the State has deposed It is not our Submitting to the present Possessors that ejects the former for they are already irretrievably Depos'd since the Supreme Power is peremptory against ' em That has publickly declar'd that whoever are our Bishops the old ones shall govern us no longer If we think the Proceeding unjust 't is enough that we remonstrate against it and express our dissatisfaction If that will not doe the Good of the Publick obliges us to be quiet § 8. Neither Thirdly is it sinfull on the account of the Oath of Canonical Obedience For that is taken not absolutely and unconditionally but with this Supposition That the Bishop to whom we take it has power to govern us If I take an Oath to be faithfull or obedient to a Governour whether Civil or Ecclesiastical I engage my self to him as a Governour that is as one that can govern If therefore he can no longer govern whatsoever the Impediment is my Obedience is no longer engag'd As it is in the State so it is in the Church The Oath that is taken to a Bishop as he is the Governour of a Church is not taken for the sake of the Bishop but for the Peace and good Order of the Church 'T is this was the Design of the Church when she order'd such an Oath to be taken When therefore the Oath tends no longer to the Good of the Church but notoriously to Schism Disorder and Confusion it cannot any longer oblige but is void of it self by virtue of the Church's Intent and Design in the first Institution of it It is further to be consider'd that particularly here in the Church of England the Oath of Canonical Obedience is always taken with this Supposition That the Civil Power as well as the Ecclesiastical do allow the Bishop to govern But let us suppose even that which in reason we ought not to suppose Let us suppose that the Bishop intended that the Oath should always oblige Whatsoever was the Intent of the Bishop That was not the Intent of the Church And it is the Intent of the Church not the private Intent of the Bishop that gives an Obligation to the Oath I add That should it be both the Intent of the Bishop and likewise the Intent of the Person who takes the Oath that it should always oblige should it run in these express words I will always adhere to you if Depos'd by the Civil Autority in opposition to him whosoever he be that shall be put into your place Should any one I say take such an Oath as that yet he cannot be oblig'd by it The Oath is in it self unlawfull 't is a Sin against the Publick repugnant to the Will and the Welfare of the Church It would be in effect to swear thus I will for your sake oppose the Welfare