CHAP. I.

The Reasonableness of submitting to the present Possessor, if otherwise unex­ceptionable, tho' the Predecessor was unjustly or invalidly deposed by the Secular Power, demonstrated. Objections answer'd. No obligation to the contrary by the Oath of Canonical Obedience. The Authority of S. Cyprian unreasonably alleg'd by our Adversaries. The Vindicator's Notion of He­resy not at all to his Purpose.

THE Doctrine maintain'd by the Author of the Baroccian Treatise, is this; That supposing a Bishop depriv'd without any Synod by the Ci­vil Power, is unjustly depriv'd; yet neither He himself, nor the Peo­ple, ought to separate from the Communion of his Successor, provided that Successor is not a Heretick. In answer to that Treatise, it is alleg'd by some of our Adversaries, That not onely Heresy, but Schism likewise, and Excommunication make a Person uncapable of being receiv'd as a Bishop. It is manifest, says one of our *An Answer to a Treatise out of Ec­cles. History, &c. in the Preface. Answerers, that the Principles advanced by the Author of the Baroccian Treatise, make all Church-Censures ineffectual, and expose the Church to all the Mis­chiefs of Erastianism. For if a Prince should preferr an ex­communicated Person to the See of the Bishop, by whom he stands excommunicated, supposing onely that he was not ex­communicated for Heresy, this Person, tho' never so justly excommunicated, must be own'd and obey'd 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. All this He very well knew was nothing at all to his Purpose, and nothing against either ours, or our Author's Cause: But he likewise knew, it would have been less to his Purpose to have told his Reader so. To avoid all impertinent Cavil, that we may not run off from the Scope and Design of our Writing, I shall take leave to alter the last Clause of the Proposition thus: Provided that Successor be in all other Respects such whose Communion no good Catholick can justly refuse.

[Page 2]§. 2. Having laid down fairly our Proposition, and secured it (if that may be possible) from all Cavil, We will now proceed to demonstrate the Truth of it. And this we shall do, first, from the Reasonableness of it; and, 2dly. from the Autority and Practice of the Antients; by which the Reasonableness of it will more certainly and evidently appear.

§. 3. First from the Reasonableness of it: And that is grounded on this certain and self-evident Maxim, That whatsoever is necessary for the present Peace and Tranquillity of the Church, that ought to be made use of, provided it is not in it self sinfull, and 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. 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 *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. 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 (a) Collat. Carthag. 1. c. 16. propose that Expedient to their Adversaries the Donatists, for the putting an End to their Schism. And the same Expedient was (b) Theodoret Hist. Eccl. l. 5. c. 3. proposed (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. 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 [Page 3] Bishops Theodorus and Proculus Archbishops of Tours (a) Gr [...]g. Turon. Hist. l. 10. c. 31. 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 (b) Can. 4. 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 (c) Can. 6. by that Council uncapable of governing as a Bishop: Yet when Siderius had been ordain'd Bishop of Palebisca by (d) Synesius Epist. 67. 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 (e) [...]. yielded, saith Synesius, to the Necessity of the Times. 'Tis 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: (f) [...]. 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 (g) S. Silverius leva­tus est à Theodato Ty­ranno sine deliberati­one Decreti: qui Theo­datus corruptus pecu­niâ datâ talem timo­rem induxit Clero, ut qui non consentiret in ejus Ordinationem gl [...] ­dio puniretur. Qui qui­dem Sacerdotes non sub­scripserunt in eum se­cundum morem anti­quum vel Decretum confirmaverunt ante Ordinationem: Iam vero ordinato sub vi & metu Silverio prop­ter adunationem Eccle­siae & Religionis post­modum sic subscripse­runt Episcopi. 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 (h) Zonaras Annal. p. 190. 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 [Page 4] Calendion was made Patriarch of Antioch by the Emperor Zeno, and Ordain'd by Acacius the Patriarch of C P. tho' that (a) Simplicius Papa in Epist. ad Zenonem Imp. was unlawfull by the *By which it is enacted, That all Bi­shops should be Or­dain'd by Bishops of their respective Pro­vinces. Can. 4. 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, (b)Epist. 16. ad Acacium. Quod sicut non optavimus ficri, ita faciles excusationi quam necessitas fecit exstitimus; quia quod voluntarium non est, non potest vocari in r [...]atum. 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. 'Tis 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? [Page 5] 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, 'tis 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. 'Tis 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; 'tis 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 of the Publick, and break the Vnion of the Church; I will leave the Communion of the Church, and adhere to you, tho' I have not any Reason to do so besides this bare Oath. To conclude; Whatsoever is notoriously repugnant to the Church's interest, so as to be necessarily productive of very great Evils, is so far from being obliging, that it would be a Sin to act according to it.

It is granted by our Adversaries, that the Obligation of an Oath of Canonical Obedience ceases, if a Bishop is depriv'd, tho' never so unjustly by a Synod: Now what is the Reason of that? 'Tis because to adhere to a Bishop, when a Synod has fully deposed him, and placed another in his See, must occasion a Division in the Church, and disturb the Publick. If that is the Reason, as no one can assign any other, (at least there can be none but what is grounded on that,) then the Reason is the same in both Cases: and consequently in both [Page 6] Cases the Oath will be equally void. 'Tis in vain to allege, That in the Case of a Synod we cease to be obliged by our Oath, because every Bishop is suppos'd to have obliged himself to submit to the Determination of a Synod, whether just or unjust; and therefore when a Synod has Deposed him, tho' by an unjust sentence, his Place is truly void by virtue of his supposed Consent: For suppose a Bishop should have always declar'd, that he never would give his Consent, that a Synod should have Power to Depose him by an unjust Sentence: ought we not however to submit to the new Constituted Bishop? Our Adversaries will tell us, that we ought. But why? 'Tis because the Necessity of Govern­ment and the Peace of the Church requires it. Well then; it is certain, that it is not the Bishop's Consent, but Necessity and the Good of the Publick that makes our Oath void.

Tho' in some Respects there is a great deal of Difference between what is done by a competent or a lawfull Autority, and what is done by an incompetent or an unlawfull Autority: yet, as to our Acquiescence, in a Case of Necessity, such as is here supposed, I can see no Difference at all. The Obligation to acquiesce is the same in both Cases, when in both Cases the Necessity is the same. If a Lord be dispossess'd of his Mannor by an Incompetent Autority that cannot be resisted, (a Conqueror, suppose, or an unlawfull Court) Who thinks the Tenant forsworn for submitting to the new Possessor? Who makes any difference there between a Competent and an Incompetent Autority? And why is the Tenant in such a Case not forsworn? If he cannot (or ought not to) oppose the Intruder, yet ought he not at least to give up his Estate, rather than submit and do Homage to the wrong Lord? 'Twill be granted, I presume, by our Adversaries, that he is neither obliged to oppose the Intruder, nor yet to give up his Estate. But why does the Oath, which he took to the rightfull Lord, cease to oblige him? 'Tis because when he took the Oath, he took it onely on this Supposition, That the Lord was Possess'd of the Mannor. The Peace and Tranquillity of the Pub­lick, and the Good of Tenants in general give that Restriction to the Oath.

If the Bishop of a Frontier Town will not own the Autority of a Conqueror, and is therefore Deposed by that Conqueror, I desire to know of our Adversa­ries, whether the Clergy of that Town are perjur'd if they own that Bishop whom the Conqueror thinks fit to set over 'em? If a Bishop should by the Civil Power be condemn'd to perpetual and close Imprisonment, or be banish'd for­ever from his Country, so as that it is impossible for him to perform the Du­ties of a Bishop: or should he be carried away Captive we know not where, or from whence we cannot redeem him: What then? Are we still obliged by our Oath, because he was Deposed by no Synod? When in the Beginning of the 3d. Century, * Euseb. Hist Eccl. l. 6. c. 10. Narcissus Bishop of Ierusalem, had secretly withdrawn himself, and no Body knew what was become of him, left the Church should be without the Assistance of a Bishop, there was presently a new one Ordain'd. How their Bishop was lost, they knew not: 'Twas enough that he was gone, and did not any longer Officiate. The Church, says S. Chrysostom, cannot be without a Bishop. That he said to his People, when he himself was to be car­ried away into Banishment; and on that account he advises 'em to accept of another for their Bishop.

[Page 7]I easily foresee what will be the Reply of our Adversaries. They will tell us, That in such Cases we ought to presume, that the Bishop gives his Consent that his Successor should be acknowledged: That therefore the Oath does no longer oblige, because there is a rational Presumption, that the banish'd, the imprison'd, or the captive Bishop, and He of the Frontier Town, do remit the Obligation of it. To this I answer: 1. It is indeed to be presum'd, that a good Bishop, one that can say with *Orat. 28. [...]. S. Gregory, then Bishop of C P. I seek not yours, but you, will readily forego his own In­terest for the Welfare and Prosperity of his Flock: And since our ejected Bishops, who are (I am fully perswaded) very worthy and good Men, and real Lovers of their People, have never by any publick signification of their Will, laid claim to the Obedience of their People, and do not now exercise their Episcopal Power as before; in reason we ought to presume that they give their Consent that their Successors should be acknow­ledged. But, 2dly. let it be supposed, that the outed Governor does expresly assure his Inferiors, that he does not give his Consent, but still lays Claim to their Obedience. Suppose the conquer'd, the banish'd, the imprison'd, or the captive Bishop should charge his People expresly upon their Oath never to accept of any other Bishop as long as by the common Course of Nature he himself may be supposed to be living, or till they be assur'd he is dead: Let this I say be supposed, (and easy it is to be supposed,) What must be done in such Cases? Is the Church perjur'd if she accepts of another? Will our Adversaries say that she is? A hard Saying! Who can bear it? This Presumption of the ejected Go­vernor's Consent is (I know) what is commonly alleg'd by some very learned and otherwise judicious Men, as the true and the onely foundation of Acqui­escence when the lawfull Governor is unjustly Depos'd by a Power incompetent: But that that is not the true and the onely foundation, these Difficulties which I have alleg'd do (me-thinks) abundantly demonstrate. Other Men I must leave to their own ways of Thinking. For my part, I cannot imagine, that the Welfare and Prosperity of Mankind does depend upon so ticklish and uncertain a Point as that of an ejected Governor's Consent: That, if he refuses to give his Consent, all the Church or the Nation must be made a Sacrifice to him. It is easy to discover, upon how false a Principle that Notion is built. It is grounded on this, That the Oath that is taken to the Governor, is taken onely for his sake; when if the true End and Design of Government were duely and impartially consider'd, it would be found (as above I observ'd) that the Oath that is ta­ken to the Governor, is taken not onely for his Good, but chiefly for the Good of the Publick; and that any Oath taken to a Governor that is notoriously and in a high degree repugnant to the Good and Prosperity of the Publick, so as to be necessarily productive of intolerable Evils, is in its own Nature void; because by the Publick it was never design'd that in such a Case it should oblige.

By the Author of a Treatise entitled; Vnity of Priesthood necessary to the Vni­ty of Communion, there are two Examples produced, to shew how observant the Antients were of their Oath of Canonical Obedience; which the Author calls eminent Instances, and proposes 'em to the Consideration of the Bishops of our Church, and wishes they would seriously apply 'em. The first is that of Ivo Bishop of Chartres in France, who flourish'd about 600 years ago. He being one of the Suffragans of the Archbishop of Sens, was desired by the Bishop of [Page 8] Lyons, who was likewise the Pope's Legate, to assist him at the Consecration of the Bishop of Nivers: but the Bishop of Nivers being a Suffragan to the said Archbishop of Sens; and that Archbishop having *In those days the Pope's power of Or­daining Bishops in a­nother District, with­out the Consent of the Metropolitan, was not own'd by the Western Church. ne­ver given his Consent that the Bishop of Lyons should Or­dain a Bishop of his District, Ivo refuses to assist at the Consecration: And this is the reason he gives for it; Be­cause if he should engage in such an undertaking, he should be unfaithfull to his own Metropolitan, and betray the Privileges allow'd that Church by the Canons as a Metropolitical Church, which by Oath he was oblig'd to maintain; Reus sieret violatae sponsionis quam Sedi Metro­politanae secerat. If the Archbishop of York had pretended to Constitute a Bi­shop of the Province of Canterbury, without the Consent of the Archbishop of Canterbury, and a Suffragan of the Province of Canterbury had assisted in that Ordination, our Bishops would then have been able to apply this eminent In­stance. But as the Case stands, they know not, I believe, how to do it: And the Author is desired, that he himself, if he can, would be pleas'd to apply it. The other Instance is that of the Bishops of our own Country in the Reign of William II. There arising a great Difference between the King and Anselm Arch­bishop of Canterbury about acknowledging the Pope, Whether the Archbishop could lawfully do it without the King's Consent? The Matter was referr'd to the Parliament, and the Bishops being by the King requir'd to deprive the Archbishop, they answer'd, saith Eadmerus, (a) Dolemus quod animo tuo, Do­mine, satisfacere non valemus. Pri­mas est non modo istius regni, sed & Scotiae, & Hiberni [...]e, necnon adjacen­tium Infularum, nosque Suffraganei ejus, unde patet nos rationabiliter eum judicare vel damnare nullatenus posse, etiamsi aliqua culpa in eo, qu [...]e modo non valet, possit ostendi. P 30. That that they could not do, because he was their Metropolitan. 'Tis hard to conjecture what our Author intended by proposing this Example as worthy Consideration: unless it be that an Archbishop of Canterbury should be now above all Deprivation. He contends in his Treatise, that a Bishop ought not to be Deprived, but by Bishops; and hereby pro­ducing this Example (if he means any thing at all) he intimates, That an Arch­bishop cannot be Deprived by the Bishops his Suffragans, because of their Oath of Obedience. But whatever was our Author's meaning: certain it is, that it was not be­cause of the Oath of Obedience that the Bi­shops refus'd to Deprive Anselm, as the King would have had 'em; but because they had at (b)They had before promis'd the King to Deprive Anselm; but, I know not how, on a suddain they took up that Opinion, which before was never heard of amongst the Bishops of England: Protinus intellexerunt (saith Eadmerus, who was there present) quod prius non animadverterunt, nec ipsum adver­tere posse putaverant; viz. Archiepi­scopum Cant. à nullo hominum, nisi à solo Papâ, judicari posse vel damnari, nec ab aliquo cogi pro quâvis calum­niâ cuiquam, eo excepto, contra suum Velle respondere. P. 29. that time an Opinion amongst 'em, that a Primate or Metropolitan could be judg'd and depriv'd by no one but the Pope. So far were they from thinking themselves oblig'd by their Oath not to Deprive him, that it's very (c) Ait Rex, Quid igitur restat? Si eum judicare non potestis, non­ne sa [...]em omnis obedientiae fidem ac frarernae societatis amicitiam ei denegare potes [...]is? Hot quidem, inqulunt, quoniam jubes, facere possumus. Properate igitur & quod dicitis citi [...] facits, ut cum viderit se à cunctis despectum ac desolatum verecumdetur & ingemiscat se Urbanum, me Do­mino suo contempto, secutum. Et quo ista securius faciatis, En ego priúm in imperio meo penitùs ei omnem securitatem, & siduciam mei tollo, ac deinceps in illo vel de illo nulla in causà considere, vel eum pro Archiepiscopo aut Patre spirituali tenere volo.— Sociatis sibi Abbatibus ( adds Eadmerus) Episcopi retulerunt Patri quod dixerat Rex, suam, pro voto illius, abnegationem ingerentes.— Cum propterea (answers the Arch­bishop) quod me ad B. Petri Principis Apostolorum subjectionem ac fidelitatem teneo, mihi omnem subjectionem, fidem, & amicitiam, quam Primati vestro & Patri spirituali de­betis, abnegatis, non reclè proceditis. notorius, that tho' he was not De­priv'd, yet they threw off all Obedience, and renounced their Subjection to him.

[Page 9]§. 9. We are next to consider that Objection which is made by the learn­ed Vindicator, That a Bishop put into the place of another, deposed by the Lay-power, is in reality no Bishop. If this is true, then it must be granted, that we cannot be oblig'd for the sake of Union and Peace, to adhere to the present Possessor. This indeed is the Difference between our Civil and our Ecclesiastical Governors. The former are purely Governors, and nothing more is required in them but to be capable of Governing; The latter are not onely Governors, but are likewise the Administrators of Sacraments, and the sole Ordainers of the Clergy. It is therefore necessary, not onely that the Ecclesi­astical Governor should be duly qualified for Government, but that he should be likewise endued by God Almighty with the Power of Ordaining, and of administring the holy Sacraments. Thus much must be granted: Let us now see what Argument the Vindicator can produce to degrade our present Posses­sors, and to prove 'em no Bishops. It is nothing but a Saying of S. Cy­prian that is nothing at all to his Purpose. The Saying is this: That a se­cond Bishop is no Bishop. 'Tis strange methinks, that so great and so worthy a Man, should pretend to raise so great and so extraordinary a Structure upon so weak a Foundation. The Occasion of the Saying was this: Novatian, a pri­vate Presbyter, had rais'd a Schism against Cornelius the lawfull Bishop of Rome; he had got himself to be ordain'd Bishop, tho' Cornelius had never been depos'd, was still the Possessor, and acknowledg'd the true and the onely Bishop of Rome by all the Churches of the World, both the Western, the Eastern, and the African; and Novatian was by all condemn'd as a rank and notorious Schismatick. S. Cyprian, who was al­ways very zealous for the Unity of the Church, thus expresses himself, in his Epistle to (a)Epist. 55. Quo (gradu Cathe­dr [...]e Sacerdotalis) occupato de Dei voluntate, atque omnium nostrûm consensione firmato; quisquis jam E­piscopus fi [...]ri voluevit, foris fiat ne­cesse est; nec habeat Ecclesiasticam Ordinationem qui Ecclesiae non tenet unitatem; quisquis ille suerit mul­tum de se licet jactans, & sibi plu­rimum vindicans; profanus est, alie­nus est, foris est. Et cum post pri­mum secundus esse non possit; quis­quis post unum qui solus esse debeat, factus est; non jam secundus ille, sed nullus est. Antonianus, concerning him. Cornelius, says he, being possess'd of the See according to the Will of God, and confirm'd in it by the Con­sent of us all; whoever would now be a Bishop of that See, must needs be out of the Church; neither can he have any Ecclesiastical Orders, who does not continue in Vnity with the Church. Whosoever he is, whatsoever he may boast of himself or pretend to, he is a prophane Person, an Alien, and not of the Church: And since there cannot be a second Bishop, where another is al­ready [Page 10] in possession; whosoever is made Bishop after another, who ought to be alone, he is not a second, but none. This is the place out of which the learned Vin­dicator is pleas'd to draw his Argument; with how Logical an Inference the judicious Reader may see. 'Tis strange that That excellent Person should be so much blinded with Prejudice, as not to be able to discover how vast a dif­ference there is between the Case of our Present Bishops, and that of which S. Cyprian discourses. Had Cornelius been deposed by the Emperor for refusing to acknowledge his Autority, we have all the reason in the world to believe, That his Deprivation would have been lookt upon by S. Cyrrian as very rea­sonable and just. But let us still grant, as we first supposed in our Question, That he ought not to have been deprived by the Emperor himself, but by Bi­shops: Yet if he had been deprived for refusing to acknowledge the Emperor's Autority; or if he had been upon any other account so deprived by the Impe­rial Autority, as that it would have been impossible for him to exercise his Epi­scopal jurisdiction; Is it possible for any wise and unprejudiced Man to imagine, That S. Cyprian would have thought so ill of Novatian and his Adherents, as he did? If an Enemy of the Roman Empire, suppose the King of Persia, should in S. Cyprian's time have taken a Frontier City, and the Bishop of that City should have been deposed by him for refusing to submit to his Autority, Who can believe that That great and wise Man S. Cyprian, would have declared a new Bishop no Bishop, and all his Adherents Schismatical? That a second, that is, a Schismatical Bishop, an Invader of a See already fill'd and possess'd, is no Bishop, is confess'd to be S. Cyprian's Doctrine: But that our Bishops are, in the Sence of S. Cyprian, the Invaders of a See already fill'd and possess'd, that they are secundi in his Sence, is what we utterly deny. Not a Word, not a Hint in S. Cyprian, from whence such a thing can be inferr'd. The Vindicator may be pleas'd to consider, that our present Possessors did not set up themselves in op­position to such as were possess'd of their Sees; but before they pretended to be Bishops, their Predecessors were made by the Supreme Civil Power uncapa­ble of Governing, i. e. were Depos'd. Again, he ought to consider that our pre­sent Possessors were so far from ambitiously invading, like Novatian, the Sees of others, that they were all chose by their respective Churches according to the usual manner; viz. in the same manner that their Predecessors themselves had been. Let us hold up the Picture, which the Vindicator has been pleas'd to draw, to a true Light; and then we shall the better see what a strange Figure it is. The Vindicator's Enthymeme is this:

I add, That if a Bishop be a Secundus, and no Bishop, who is put into the place of one unjustly depos'd by the Civil Autority; then it likewise must fol­low, that he is a secundus, and no Bishop, who is put into the place of another [Page 11] whom a Synod has unjustly depos'd. But this the learned Vindicator will neither himself grant; neither does he, I suppose, believe that S. Cyprian thought so. I say that must follow, if we seriously consider the Matter: For the onely good Reason assignable, why in the former Case, the Successor is a secundus, and no Bishop, is this; Because the Predecessor has still a Right to the Bishoprick. Now 'tis certain, that the Reason is the same in the latter Case: For a Bishop, whom a Synod has unjustly depriv'd, has still as much Right to his Bishoprick, as a Bi­shop invalidly depos'd by the Civil Autority. For to me 'tis absurd, that any unjust Sentence should take away the Right: tho', the Nature of Government requiring it, it is oftentimes necessary that we should submit to such a Sentence. And this (if I am not mistaken) is the common Sence of Mankind. When a Bishop is unjustly depriv'd by a Synod, we submit to his Successor; not because we imagine, that the other has no longer a Right, but onely for Peace sake. That a Bishop unjustly depriv'd by a Synod, has still a Right to that Bishoprick, as well as a Bishop deposed by an Incompetent Autority, may be clearly demon­strated from this, That after he is deprived, he may be again restor'd, and his Successor be deposed by Appeal to another Synod: (and yet the ejected Successor is accounted a true Bishop:) Now is that done justly or not? There is no one will say it is not: And yet it is impossible that the Successor should be justly deprived, if the other had no Right.

To conclude: That a Bishop, who is put into the place of another, unjustly deprived by the Secular Power, is a real and true Bishop, will by and by ap­pear by the Opinion and the Practice of the Antients in general. Let us now proceed to demonstrate, that, as the submitting to a Bishop, whose Predecessor was unjustly deposed by the Civil Autority, is not in it self a Sin; so the ill Consequen­ces to which it may be liable, are either not so mischievous to the Church, or not so likely to happen as the Evils we endeavour to avoid.

§. 10. The Evils we endeavour to avoid are a Schism and a persecution; two Evils as great as can possibly befall the Church. And that those two very great Evils must needs be the certain and the immediate Consequences of a non­submission, is too evident to any Considering Man to need any Proof. If the ill Consequences, to which a submission may be liable, are so great as those two Evils, but not so certain; or if they are so certain, but not so great, it must then be granted that, with respect to Consequences, a Submission is more rea­sonable than a Non-submission. Now if we consider those evil Consequences which may justly be charg'd upon the Submission, we shall find that they are so far from being both so great and so certain, that they are neither so great nor so certain, as those two Evils, which, by a Non-submission, must unavoidably be brought upon the Church.

So far indeed is the Principle, which we maintain, from being necessarily at­tended with any very ill Consequence, that it is not easy to foresee any Conse­quence at all that is Evil. As it is for the Good, the Peace, and Prosperity of the Church, that we think our selves obliged to comply, upon occasion, with the Necessity of Times: So if ever the Civil Power (which to fear in this Reign would be very unjust and unreasonable) should pretend to break in upon the Essentials of the Church, we should then be obliged not to yield to such Im­positions. [...] the evil Day must needs come, (which God forbid!) we will keep it off as long as we can. When it necessarily comes, as now we shew our [Page 12] Prudence, so we'll prove our Fortitude. Not to endeavour to escape from Damascus when a Basket is fairly offer'd, would be Folly in an Apostle: And to run on to Martyrdom, when it honestly may be avoided, is, according to the Sanctions of the Primitive Christians, a Sin. Should 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, *The Roman Clergy for that reason deferr'd the Election of Cornelius (above 16 Months) as they tell S. Cyprian in a Letter; but as soon as the Emperor had left Rome, they chose Cornelius Bi­shop. 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 'tis 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 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 [Page 13] 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 [Page 14] 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. 'Tis 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 'tis, 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.

[Page 15]§. 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 'tis 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? 'Tis 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.

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 'tis needless for us to contend about,) it is certain that the Jewish High-priests were rather superior than inferior to our Bishops. 'Twas 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 [Page 17] 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 with God, since these Expiations were the yearly renewing of that Covenant. Nor can any of the Performances of the Christian Priesthood be compared to this, unless we believe the Power of Transubstantiating. These Examples of the Jewish High-priests alone, were there no other to be alleged, would sufficiently warrant our Submission to our present Possessors. Let us now see what Examples those are.

§. 3. Our first Example is that of the first High-priest that ever we know to have been deposed, viz. of Abiathar. He was (a)After he had been High-priest 40 years, viz. during all the Reign of King David. de­posed by the bare Autority of King Solomon, for having adhered to Adonijah his elder Brother, (as small a fault as could be of that nature) tho' afterwards he had submitted, and acknowledged King Solomon's Autority as soon as ever he was made King. Tho' Abiathar was thus deposed, yet Zadok being by the (b)And the King pur Benaiah in the room of Ioab over the Host, and Zadok the Priest did the King put in the room of Abiathar, 1 Kings 11.35. same Autority placed in his room, all the Nation of the Iews, both Priests and People, sub­mit themselves to him, and own him as High-priest. Even the Sons of the deposed Abiathar, Ionathan and Ahimelech, act as Priests under Zadok. Iosephus in his Iewish Anti­quities has observ'd, that this was the first Instance of a High-priest deposed. From the beginning, says he, (c) L. 20. c. 8. He does not speak thus in express Terms, but to a considering Rea­der that knows the Story of Abiathar's being deposed by King Solomon, it will plainly appear to be his meaning. for 13 Successions there was no High-priest put into the room of another, unless deceased; after that some began to be consti­tuted whilst their Predecessors were living. What is said by some of the Rabbies concerning the Deprivation of Phineas, the Grandson of Aaron, was altogether unknown *Tho' Phineas's Posterity were put by when Ithamar's obtain'd the High-priest­hood, yet we ought not to conclude from thence, as the Rabbies usually do, That Phineas himself was deposed: For it might be done after his death. to Iose­phus; neither does it concern the Subject of this Treatise; he being depriv'd, if at all, by God's immediate Act.

It's alleged by (d)Unity of Priest­hood, &c. p. 34, 35. The Crime being Ca­pital, and the High-priest the Criminal, we may well con­clude, That before Solomon thrust him from the Priesthood, the Sanhedrin had previously judg'd & pass'd their Sentence upon him. one of our Adversaries, that Abiathar was not deposed by the Autority of the King, but by that of the Sanhedrin, or great Council: And this he endea­vours to evince from these two Considerations. 1. Be­cause it is said by the Rabbies, that in Capital Causes it was lawfull onely for the Sanhedrin to judge the High-priest. 2. Because Iosephus, the Historian, says of Ioab, That be­fore the King sent Benaiah to fall upon him, he first sent him to fetch him from the Altar, in order to bring him [...] to the Seat of Iudica­ture, there to plead his Cause. And if this Formality, says our Author, was used towards Joab before ever the Com­mand was given, to have him slain; it's probable [...]he like was used towards Adoni­jah, [Page 18] the King's Brother, before he was slain: and the like also to Abiathar before he was thrust from the Priesthood. At present it is not my Business to assert the Autority of the Civil Power in depriving a Bishop, or to shew that the Kings of Iudea had Autority to deprive a High-priest: I suppose at present, That the Deprivation of Abiathar by King Solomon was irregular and unlawfull; and am onely to demonstrate, That, de facto, he was deposed by the bare Autority of the King. Now a thousand such little Nothings, as our Author's Presumptions and Conjectures, from what is related by Iosephus concerning Ioab, I shall fully and unanswerably confute by producing the Words of the Scripture *1 Kings 11.26.. Now therefore as the Lord liveth, says King Solomon, which hath established me, and set me on the Throne of David my Father, and who hath made me a house as he promised, Adonijah shall be put to death this day. And King Solomon sent by the hand of Benaiah the Son of Iehoiada, and he fell upon him that he died. And unto Abiathar the Priest said the King, Get thee to Anathoth, unto thine own Fields, for thou art worthy of death: but I will not at this time put thee to death, because thou barest the Ark of the Lord God before David my Father, and because thou hast been afflicted in all wherein my Father was afflicted. So Solomon thrust out Abiathar from being Priest unto the Lord. So likewise Iosephus: † [...] Antiq. l. 8. c. 1. And sending for Benaiah the Captain of his Guard, he commanded him to go and slay his Brother Adonijah. And calling to him the Priest Abiathar, Thy bearing the Ark, says he, with my Father, and those things which thou suffer­ed'st in his service, deliver thee from death; but this punishment I inflict upon thee, because thou tookedst part with Adonijah. Stay thou not here, nor come into my sight any more, but go unto thy own Country, and there live till the time of thy death. For having thus sinn'd, thou art not worthy to continue in ‖Not as our English Author renders it, p. 34. For since thou hast so offended me, it is not convenient that thou shouldst be in honour with me. Dignity (as High-priest.) And thus for the aforesaid Cause the Family of Ithamar was deprived of the Honour of the High-priesthood. Whatsoever was done to Ioab, 'tis as clear and apparent as the Sun, That what was done to Adonijah and Abia­thar, was all done on a suddain, without any manner of Judicial Process in the Sanhedrin, by the bare Autority of the King. But neither is it true that Ioab was ever cited to plead his Cause in the Sanhedrin. For, first, Iosephus himself does not say so, as our Author ima­gins: For by the word [...], is not meant the Court of the Sanhedrin (that is wont to be called by Iosephus, not [...], but [...]) but the King's own Tribunal, where he himself sat Iudge: and so 'tis understood by both the Latin Translators. (a) Mittens Benaiam, cum jussit adduci, ut in ejus judicio satisfa­ciret. Epipha­nius [Page 19] Schol. and b Misit Benaiam qui citaret cum ad suum tribunal. Gelenius. 2. Even that which Iosephus does say, is not true; as ap­pears by the words of the Scripture, which Iosephus follows and mistakes. Then tidings came to Ioab, for Ioab had turned after Adonijah, tho' he turned not after Absalom; and Ioab fled unto the Tabernacle of the Lord, and caught hold on the Horns of the Altar. And it was told King So­lomon, that Ioab was fled unto the Tabernacle of the Lord, and behold he is by the Altar: Then Solomon sent Benaiah, the Son of Iehoiada, saying, Go, fall upon him. And Benaiah came to the Tabernacle of the Lord, and said unto him, Thus saith the King, Come forth. And he said, Nay, but I will die here. And Benaiah brought the King word again, saying, Thus said Ioab, and thus he answered me. And the King said unto him, Doe as he said, and fall upon him. It is said expressly that the King sent Benaiah (not to cite him to the Tribunal, but immediately) to fall upon him. These Words Iosephus, who oftentimes mistakes the true Sence of the Scripture by trusting too much to his Memory, had forgot: And because he remember'd that Ioab was commanded to come forth, he therefore rashly con­jectured, that he was commanded to come to the Tribunal: When the Reason why he was commanded to come forth, was onely this, Because it was thought not (c)See Exod. 21.14. proper to shed his bloud at the Altar.

Much like the aforesaid Evasion of our En­glish Author is that of the Jesuits (d) Admodum quoque rationi con­sentaneum est etiam Sadoci Pontificis Sententiam consensúmve intervenisse; à Levitis enim & Sacerdotibus maxi­mam judiciorum partem fuisse tracta­tam ex pluribus locis Scripturae con­stat. Annal. ad An. 3. Salomonis n. 15. Salianus and (e) Probabile est Sadoc sententiam consensúmque intervenisse, &c. Com­ment. in loc. Menochius; who would needs per­swade us, that what was done, was not done by King Solomon alone, but that Zadok like­wise, the Priest, pass'd his Sentence upon Abi­athar, and condemn'd him to be deprived; at least that his Consent was desired and granted for the Ratification of the King's Sen­tence. A wretched and a groundless Shift, that deserves not to be confuted!

A third Evasion is that of the Author of a Pamphlet, entituled, Solomon and Abiathar, &c. ‘ King Solomon (says he) did not properly and judicially deprive Abiathar of the High-priesthood, but onely commanded or required him to quit it on pain of death. For thus the words run: And unto Abiathar said the King▪ Get thee to thy Fields at Anathoth, for thou art a Man of death: But this day I will not put thee to death, because, &c. Which the LXXII. render thus, Get thee to Anathoth to thy Field, for thou art a Man of death in this very day; but I will not put thee to death, because, &c. A Man of death, our Translation renders worthy of death; but the LXXII. render the words not so much significative of Merit as a Menace, according to such a Paraphrase: Get thee off to Anathoth to thy Field, for else thou art a Man of death this very day; and if thou do'st so, I will not put thee to death. So that Abiathar here was put to his Option, Whether he would with dishonour retire from his Of­fice, or suffer death, this latter being in the rightfull power of the King, if A­biathar would not yield in the former. So that Abiathar 's Priesthood determin'd by his own voluntary Cession, not the King's Censure.’ In answer to this, I need but produce the Words of the LXXII. [...], [Page 20] &c. This (excepting the Words [...], which are removed from the latter Clause to the antecedent,) agrees exactly with the Hebrew: and the natural sence of those words is no other than what we have in our English Translation, with which all Interpreters agree, Iosephus, (as is plain from his Words above produced) the (a) Ad Ghanathoth ito tibi in domos tuas, quia Vir obnoxius occa­sioni tu es: sed hodie non occidam te, quia, &c. Chal­dee Paraphrast, the (b) In Anathoth te recipe od a­grum tuum, quoniam homo es morte dignus: bodie tamen non intersici­am te, eò quod, &c. Syriack, the (c) Vade in Anathoth rus tuum, & fundi tui culture v [...]cato, n [...]n homo es qui necem mereris: verun­tamen non occidam te, quia, &c. Ara­bick, and the (d) Vade in Anathoth ad agrum tuum, equidem vir mortis es, sed hodie te non intersiciam, quia, &c. Latin Translators, together with the Rabbinical Commentators Who all understand the Text of a positive and authori­tative Ejectment. And that it was a positive Command, not an Option proposed to A­biathar, but an absolute Deprivation, is yet more plain from the words which immedi­ately follow: So Solomon thrust out Abia­thar, &c. in the Greek: [...], &c.

Bartoldus Nihusins has another sort of E­vasion. (e) Quanquam ejecit Salomon Abiathar ut non esset Sacerdos Do­mini, & Sadoc Sacerdotem posuit pro Abiathar, sensus tamen fuerit ex Aulâ solùm Regis ejectum Abiatha­rem & substitutum ei Sadocum in Sacerdotem Aulae, ne ille sed hic fun­geretur deinceps ibi juxta Domini Arcam Pontificis partibus; quo ipso non prohibuit Salomon Abiathari Ju­um exequi munus in Tabernaculo Mo­saico quod stabat in Gabaon; ut exequntus illie fuerit antea Sadoc tanquam vicarius, 1. Paralip. 16.29. Nam profectò Rex pagum Anathoth non assignavit Abiathari in carcerem 3 Reg. 2.26. & hinc is etiamnum po­stea vocatus legatur Sacerdos: Sa­doc & Abiathar Sacerdotes; sen Pontifices. 1 Reg. IV. 4. Hypo­digm. Sect. 42. p. 290. He tells us, That Abiathar was onely turn'd out of his Office at Ierusalem, and forbid to officiate as High-priest at Court, where the Ark was fixt, not properly depri­ved of the Office of High-priest. For after­wards, says he, he was permitted to officiate as High-priest at Gibeon, where Zadok himself had been formerly High-priest before he was made in his stead High-priest of the Ark in Ierusalem. And this, he thinks, may be prov'd from hence, That in the 4th. of the 2d. of Kings, he is rankt with Zadok as High-priest under Solomon: And Benaiah the Son of Iehoiada was over the Host. And Sadok and Abiathar were Priests. This Conjecture of Nihusius, were it granted to be true, would not make at all for his Cause, nor yet against ours. For still it is certain, that Abiathar was turn'd out at Ierusalem, and Zadok was made High-priest in his stead, and by all acknow­ledged as the true Aaronick High-priest. Whether Zadok, when High-priest at Gibeon, was properly a High-priest independent of Abiathar, or onely Vicarius like our Suffragan Bishops, or Chorepiscopi, is what we cannot determine; nei­ther are we concerned to know. Certain it is, that when he was made High-priest at Ierusalem, in the room of Abiathar, he was (f)1 Chron. 29.22. a­nointed in the same manner as others used to be, who were never High-priests before. Abulensis says there are some who conclude from the Text before quoted, That Abiathar, by the special Clemency of the King, was again restor'd to the great High-priesthood of Ierusalem: And of this Opinion, says (a) De Rege eligendo & deponen­do, §. 64. [Page 21] Frischmuth, was Carthusianus: But that is a mistake; for the Conjecture of Carthusia­nus is onely this, (b)The King, says he, depriv'd him, ut Pontificali officio amplius non fungeretur, imò nec sacerdotali ad tempus. Veruntamen postea fecit ei elementiam, admittenao ipsum ad Sacerdotale officium. Nam infrà ha­betur: Zadoc & Abiathar Sacerdo­tes. Com. in 1 Reg. c. 2. That Abiathar was per­mitted by the King to officiate under Zadok, as one of the minor Priests. Whoever they were that were of the aforesaid Opinion, it is certain they were under a Mistake. For the Scripture observes, that when Abiathar was turn'd out, and Zadok put in his place, the Words which God had spoken to Eli, concerning the Alienation of the High-priesthood from his Family, were fulfilled. And what was that Prophecy? There shall not be (says God) an *That is, according to some Commentators, There shall not be a High-priest, &c. Old man in thy house for ever—I will raise me up a faith­full Priest, 1Sam. c. 2. and I will build him a sure house, and he shall walk before mine anointed for ever. And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left in thy house, shall come and crouch to him for a piece of silver, and a morsel of bread, and shall say, Put me (I pray thee) into one of the Priests Offices, that I may eat a piece of bread. This plainly demonstrates, that Abiathar was not again restor'd to the great High-priesthood at Ierusalem: And from thence it may likewise be gather'd, that he was not permitted to officiate as High-priest at Gibeon. So great an Honour would hardly suit with that Prophecy: And how is it likely, that the King would permit one whom he had banish'd from Ierusalem as his Enemy, and unworthy of the High-priesthood, to officiate as High-priest at Gibeon, since he himself (which Nihusius seems not to have thought on) was wont to go (c)1 Reg. c. 3. v. 3, 4. thither, and to offer Sacrifices there, as well as at Ierusalem? I might add against both these Opinions, as well the one as the other, that Io­sephus knew nothing of Abiathar's Officiating after his Ejectment: He takes it for granted, as appears by the Sentence which he makes the King pass upon him, that he never came any more into the King's sight, but liv'd all his life at Anathoth. And (d)Cit. apud Frischmuth. §. 65. Praecepit Abiathari Salomon, ut ne­pedem efferret loco ipsi assignato, A­nathot. Futurum eni [...] aliàs, ut si in­de se proripere haud dubitârit, san­guis ejus sit super capite ejus, quem­admodum & Simei filio Gera inti­maverat; Atque hoc constat ex ver­bis Salomonis: Sed hodie te non in­terficiam: quasi dicat, At interfici­am te eo die, quo egredi inde quo­piam ausus fueris. Abravanel, a learned and judicious Rabbi, is so far from thinking that he after­wards Officiated as High-priest either at Gi­beon or at Ierusalem, that he thinks he was banish'd to Anathoth as to a Prison, and was not to stir thence upon peril of Life. And so far was (e) Cit. à P. Martyre in Com. ad loc. & à Frischmuth, loco cit. Kimchi from being of either of the aforesaid Opinions upon the account of that Text, that he thinks Abiathar, who is menti­oned there with Zadok, was not he that was Ejected, but another of that Name. 'Tis a Conjecture of (a) Cit. ab eisdem. R. Levi Ben Gerson, that Abiathar was sometimes permitted to Officiate in the room of Zadok, when-ever Zadok was by any Defect or Pollution made uncapable of Officiating himself; And therefore he is rankt with Zadok in that Text. (b) Nic. de Lirâ, Sanctius. Others think with [Page 22] Carthusianus, That therefore he is mention'd with Zadok, because he was ad­mitted to Officiate as one of the lesser Priests. 'Tis the Opinion of others, That therefore he is mention'd with Zadok, because in the beginning of Solo­mon's Reign he had been High-priest: For it is not, say (c)See Abulensit Quaest. 33. in 3 Reg. c. 2. He is follow'd by P. Martyr, Tirinus, à Lapide. they, the Design of that Chapter, to give an account of those Men who were at one certain particular time the great Officers under Solomon, but to give an account likewise of those who at any time had been so. This Explication may well pass for (d)The onely Objection seems to be this, That Ioab, who was not actually depriv'd of his Gene­ralship till Abiathar was of the High-priesthood, is not there men­tion'd, but onely Benaiah. But perhaps the reason might be, Be­cause Ioab, who had adher'd to Adonijah, tho' he was not present­ly depriv'd, yet he never had act­ed as General in the time of Solo­mon; whereas Abiathar had seve­ral times acted as High-priest. probable; but the true one I take to be that of Serarius, Menochius, and Grotius, who tell us, That therefore he is join'd with Zadok in the Text above cited; because, tho' turn'd out of the Office, yet he still enjoy'd the Name and Ti­tle of High-priest, (and was still highly ho­nour'd as a Man of great Age and Dignity.) Thus 'tis certain from Iosephus, That in After­times, when so many High-priests were de­posed, all they that were deposed enjoy'd still the Title as well as if they had been the Possessors. And so it is now with the Patriarchs of Constantinople.

A fifth Evasion is that of (e) L. 6. de rebus Salomonis, c. 15. n. 7. Io. de Pineda, and the Card. (f) L. 2. de Pont. c. 29. & lib. contra 8. Propos. Venetam. Bellarmin, whom the Jesuits generally follow, as (g) Defens. Bellarmini, l. 2. c. 29. & l. 2. ad Theologos Venetos. Gretser, (h) Com. in loc. Serarius, (i) Com. in loc. A Lapide, (k) Manuali Controvers. l. 5. c. 19. §. 39, 40. Becanus, &c. They own that Abiathar was completely deprived by King Solomon; but, say they, he did not do it as King, but by a particular Commission from God as a Prophet. And this they prove from that Saying of the Scripture: And Solomon thrust out Abiathar from being Priest unto the Lord: that the word of the Lord might be ful­filled which he spake concerning the House of Eli in Shiloh. In answer to this, I observe, first, That till after this was done King Solomon had no Gift of Prophe­cy: It appears from (l)See 1 Reg. c. 3. the Scripture that he was first inspir'd and made a Prophet when God appear'd to him in a Vision at Gibeon: which was after the Deprivation of Abiathar. 2dly. If Solomon had deprived Abiathar to this end, that he might fulfill that Prophecy God to Eli; yet it would not thence follow, That he did it as a Prophet. He had heard of that Prophecy, and so he might adventure of him­self to fulfill it. It appears from (m) Quaest. 32 ad 3 Reg. cap. 2. An Salomon peccâsset privando A­biathar si [...]um privâsset solùm ut compleretur Sermo Dei? Dicen­dum (inquit) quod peccaret Salomon si non privaret Abiathar ex aliâ causâ. Quod patet ex duobus. 1 ^o. Quia dato quod sciret Sacerdotium aliquando cessaturum de domo Heli: tamen nesciebat an Deus voluerat, quod cessaret tempore Abiathar, vel alterius Successoris; ideo si pri­varet Abiathar, ageret contra conscientiam: dubitans, an compleret Prophetiam Dei, vel ageret contra intentionem ejus. Secundò, peccâsset Salomon isto modo, quia dato quod revelatum esset debere finiri Sacerdotium domûs Heli in Abiathar, non licebat et privare Abiathar, quia aut privaret cum jure suo; sc. in quantum trat Princeps populi Dei, ad quem perti­nebat infligore poenas, & praemia tribuere, aut ex aliquâ concessione speciali Dei. Non pri­mo modo, quia tunc non poterat privare Abiathar, nisi pro aliquo crimins, quia poenae regu­lariter pro culpis dari debent. Item non erat Abiathar de jurisdictione Salomonis quantum ad Prophetiam dictam de domo Heli: Nam Salomon & quilibet alius Princeps p [...]pul [...] Dei erat executor Legis datae per Mosin, quae erat communis, Prophetiae tamen dictae contra ali­quos crant quaedam sententiae particulares Dei, quarum nullus de jure orat Executor, nisi ipse Deus, aut ille cui ipse specialiter hoc demandaret, sed cum aliquis punit alium, qui non est de jurisdictione suà, peccat: ergo etiam Salomon peccâsset. Secundum non stat, quia Deus non commisit punitionem Abiathar, vel Executionem Prophetiae ipsi Salomoni specialiter, ergo si ipse se intromitteret de executione illius, peccaret tanquam judicans in non suo terri­torio, vel usurpan▪ sibi quocunque modo Iurisdictionem. Peccaret ergo Salomon quocunque modo puniret Abiathar, nisi pro aliquo crimine cum privaret, quia quantum ad istud esset de Iurisdictione suâ, & sic factum est hic, nam pro crimine l. [...]s. [...] Majestatis privavit cum. Abulen­sis, that tho' in his time, and before, there [Page 23] were some of that Opinion, That Solomon depriv'd Abiathar that he might ful­fill the aforesaid Prophecy, yet they never imagin'd that he did it as a Prophet by a special Commission from God; they thought he did it of himself by his own bare Autority. 3dly, It does not appear by the Text that Solomon design'd, by deposing Abiathar, to fulfill that Prophecy of God. For those words, That the Word of the Lord might be fulfilled, do onely shew, that That was the de­sign of Providence; a common mode of Expression. In the Hebrew it is, ad implendum sermonem: where ad, says Grotius, is onely [...]. neque enim hoc respiciebat Salomon. So long be­fore Grotius, the great and judicious (a) Quaest. 31. in 3 Reg. cap. 2. Salomon non privavit Abiathar prop­ter Prophetiam dictam contra Heli, sed ex aliis causis, ut patet ex verbis ejus: Nam dixit, Vir quidem mortis es, sed ho­die non te intersiciam, & tamen referendo ad Prophetiam dictam contra Heli, non erat verum quod Abiathar esset, Vir mortis: nam licèt privari posset sacerdotio, tamen mortem (ob istam prophetiam) non merebatur. Abu­lensis, a Bishop of their own Church. It is said in the Gospel of S. Matthew, that (b) C. 2. v. 23. Ioseph came and dwelt in a City called Nazareth, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Prophets, He shall be called a Naza­rene: That the Jews (c) C. 27. v. 35. crucified Christ, parting his Gar­ments, casting Lots, that it might be fulfilled which was spo­ken by the Prophet; They parted my Garments among them, &c. So S. Iohn: The Souldiers said therefore among themselves, Let us not rent, but cast lots for it, whose it shall be; that the Scripture might be fulfilled, which saith, &c. It is said in another place of S. Iohn, that notwithstanding all the Miracles of Christ, yet (d) C. 12. v. 38. the Iews believed not on him; that the Saying of Esaias the Prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our Report, &c. That (e) C. 18. v. 32. when Pilate commanded the Iews to take Jesus and Judge him according to their Law, they said unto him, It is lawfull for us to put any man to death: That the Saying of Jesus might be fulfilled, which he spake, signifying what death he should die. Who so very injudicious, as to inferr from these places, that such was the End and Design of the Persons themselves? Yet as well may we inferr, [Page 24] that such was here the Design of the Persons themselves, as that such was the Design of King Solomon deposing Abiathar. I shall onely add, That whereas some of the Iesuits do pretend to confirm their Opinion with the Autority of Theodoret and Procopius Gazaeus; those Authors are so far from thinking that King Solomon depriv'd Abiathar as a Prophet, that it does not appear, that they thought he had any respect to that Prophecy. They onely say, That in depri­ving Abiathar, he was [...], an Instrument (or an Asier) made use of by God for the fulfilling of his Prophecy.

The Jesuit Becanus, not very well satisfied (as it seems) with this Answer of Bellarmin, has besides another of his own: He tells us, That if King Solomon deposed Abiathar by his Regal Autority onely, and was not inspired by God, then he acted unlawfully; for as he was King (says he) he was not a lawfull and a competent Judge. Here now is a Man that speaks out. This is home to our Purpose. Let our Adversaries now take what Part they please. If they grant that King Solomon did well, then the Civil Power is a Competent Judge of a Bishop, and may lawfully deprive him if he refuses to own its autority, or for any other Criminal Cause for which he may by Bishops be justly deprived. If, with the Jesuit Becanus, they say he did ill, then 'tis plain from the Scripture it self, that the whole Nation of the Iews, and God himself, accepted of a High-priest, who was put into the place of another invalidly deprived by the Civil Au­tority, as a true High-priest.

§. 4. For a great many Generations the High-priesthood continued in the Family of Zadok without the Deprivation of any. We read of no one depo­sed by either the Regal or any other Authority, till the time of Onias III. Sir­named the Pious. Of him we read in the Breviary of Iason of Cy­rene, viz. the (a) C. 4. 11. of Maccabees, that he was deposed by King Antiochus Epiphanes, by the means of a Bribe which his Brother Iesus (call'd otherwise Iason) had offer'd for the Honour, who was thereupon placed in his room. Iosephus, in the (b) Cap. 6. [...]. 12th. Book of his Antiquities, says Antiochus, con­ferr'd the High-priesthood on Iason, after the death of Onias. And again, in his 15th. Book he says, that Iason himself was the first of all the High-priests (he means after Solomon's time) that whilst alive were depriv'd of their Dignity. But in this Iosephus was mistaken, as appears not onely by the express Testimony of Iason of Cyrene, but likewise by that very particular (c)See 2. Maccab. c. 4. v. 33, &c. account which he gives of Onias's Death several years after the Promotion, and even after the Deprivation of Iason, in the time of the High-priest Menelaus. And Iosephus him­self in another place, viz. in his Book (d) [...]. C. 4. [...], has affirm'd the same [Page 25] thing, that Onias was deposed by the King, and Iason for Money promoted to the High-priesthood. The contrary Custom of continuing the High-priest, during life, is call'd by (a) [...], &c. Quanquam in­solitum (says Sulpitius Severus) neque ante permissum cuiquam erat perpe­tuò Sacerdotio non fungi, sollicitus tamen Regis animus atque aeger a­varitiâ facilè superatus est. Iosephus a Law; yet of any Contention occasion'd by the good and unjustly deposed Onias, not a word in any Author. On the contrary it appears, that he meekly submitted to Necessity; and we read no more of him till the time of the High-priest Menelaus, that he reprehended that un­godly High-priest for having embezell'd the holy Vessels of the Temple, and was therefore murder'd.

§. 5. Iason, after the expiration of three years, was deposed by the same Autority, and by the same means by which he had been advanced; and his younger Brother Onias, called likewise Menelaus, succeeded him. He was de­posed, says Iosephus, through some *Antiq. l. 12. c. 6. [...]. displea­sure, which the King had conceived against him; by the means of a Bribe, says Iason of Cyrene, which his Brother Menelaus had of­fer'd for the Honour. Here now is an Ex­ample for our Adversaries; but a very unhappy one. There was no Sedition occasion'd by the Pious Onias; but Iason, who, after he was made High-priest, proved a very prophane and ungodly Wretch, was no sooner deposed, but he raised a Sedition against his Successor. He raised a Sedition for the Dignity of the High-priesthood, says Eusebius; and Iosephus tells us, that the greater part of the People join'd with him, to that degree, that Menelaus, with the Chief of his Adherents, was forc'd to flee away to Antiochus, tho' he soon return'd and enjoy'd the High-priesthood. You will not imagine, it was any thing of Conscience, or any sense of Religion that caused that Sedition, or that made the major part of the People declare in the beginning for Iason: No certainly; That could not be, since Iason himself had been advanc'd to that Dignity, when his Brother and Predecessor had been unjustly depos'd, and that too by his pro­curement; especially since that Brother, who had been unjustly depos'd, was still living. Tho' Menelaus was at that time a very flagitious Villain, and ought upon that account to have been oppos'd, yet 'twas nothing but Revenge and Resent­ment that excited Iason; and 'twas chiefly the lewd and prophane Pastimes which the People enjoy'd under Iason, that made 'em adhere in the beginning to him. Read the 4th. Chapter of the 2d. of Maccabees, where after a History of his excessive wickedness, as it is there term'd, and an account of the Heathen­ish Customs to which he had debauch'd the People; he is styl'd † [...]. the ungracious Jason, that ungodly Wretch, and not a High-priest. There was yet another thing, which seems to have heighten'd the People's aversion to Me­nelaus, when first he was advanc'd to that Dignity; and that was his cruel and bloudy Disposition. He came, says the Author of the Maccabees, with the King's Mandate, bringing nothing worthy of the High-priesthood, but having the fury of a cruel Tyrant, and the rage of a Savage beast. We will leave the foeda certa­mina [Page 26] of these two Brothers, (so Sulpitius Severus calls 'em) and proceed to

§. 5. Hyrcanus, the second of that Name, who was depriv'd of his High-priesthood and Kingdom by his younger Brother Aristobulus, after he had enjoy'd the High-priesthood for the space of nine years. They had fought a battle; and Hyrcanus being overcome, was forc'd to (a) Iosephus Antiq. l. 14. c. 1. & de bello Iud. l. 1. c. 4. resign both his Honours by a solemn League and Agreement. His Resignation was by Compulsion, and Aristobulus was lookt upon by all as an Vsurper. Iosephus affirms, that Hyrcanus had still a (b) De bello Iud. l. 1. c. 5. Right to the Dignity; and so it was afterwards (c) Ibid. adjudg'd by I. Caesar; and so Hyrcanus after that (d) Antiq. l. 14. c. 5. pleaded before Pompey. However, Aristobu­lus is own'd, and is peaceably settled in his Government. Hyrcanus submits to Necessity, and lives very quietly under him. He is urg'd by his Friend Antipater to endeavour for a Restauration; he denies to do it; Antipater tells him, He is in danger of his Life; that the King designs to destroy him, yet nothing will perswade him. At last, being wearied by the Importu­nities of Antipater, and affrighted by the continual Representations made him of the danger he was in, he flies away to Aretas, a King of the Arabs, obtains of him an Army, defeats his Brother in a Battle, and besieges him in the Tem­ple. The Siege is rais'd by the Autority of the Romans: Their Cause is brought before Pompey the Great, who leaves it not fully decided. Pompey having after­wards receiv'd an Affront from Aristobulus, raises a War against him, takes the City Ierusalem by Storm, and (e) [...]. De'bel. Iud. l. 1. c. 5. In eundem tenorem, Antiq. l. 14. c. 8. bestows the Pontificate on Hyrcanus. This he did, says Iosephus, as well because of other good Offices which Hyrcanus had done him, as be­cause he had hinder'd the Jews of the Country round about from defending Aristobulus against him.

At that time that Hyrcanus, as is above said, besiege Aristobulus in that part of the City Ierusalem where the Temple was built; Iosephus says, that the Peo­ple of Ierusalem went all over to the Conqueror Hyrca­nus; but withall he observes, that the * [...]. Antiq. l. 14. c. 3. Priests would not leave their present High-priest Aristobulus, but still ad­hered faithfully to him.

It is further observable what Iosephus relates as happening during that Siege: For by that it may appear of what opinion both He and others were concerning those Sacrifices which were offer'd up to God by the Usurper Aristobulus, and how acceptable to God those Acts of Religion were, which he as High-priest performed, tho' he came into the Office by force and usur­pation, and was not accounted the † [...], says Iosephus. rightfull High-priest. Whilst Aristobulus, ‖ Antiq. l. 14. c. 3. says Josephus, was besieged in the Temple, the Feast of Vnleavened Bread, which we call the Passover, being at hand, the Chief among the Jews left their Country, and fled into Egypt. Now one Onias, a just Man, [Page 27] and beloved of God, who had formerly, in the time of a Drought, obtained Rain by his pious Prayers, and hid himself, as perceiving a Civil War coming on: Him the Jews brought into their Camp, and required him, That as he had heretofore pre­vented a Famine, so he would now draw down a Curse upon Aristobulus, and all those that adhered to him. When he had long refused to do it, and at last was threatned by the Multitude, he stood in the midst of 'em, and prayed thus: O God, the King of all the World, since these, who stand here with me, are thy People, and they that are besieged are thy Priests, I beseech thee not to hearken to the Prayers of either Party against the other. After he had made this Prayer, there encompassed him round about certain Villainous Jews, and they overwhelmed him with Stones. Which cruelty God immediately revenged after this manner. Whilst Aristobulus was thus besieged, the Passover comes on; in which Feast our Custom is to honour God with many Sacrifices: Now the Besieged being destitute of Sacrifices, entreated their Countrymen without, that for Money, as much as they would desire, they would supply 'em with Victims. They demand a thousand Drachms for each Victim; which Aristobulus and the Priests agree to, and let down the Money from the Wall. But they, when they had got the Money, refused to supply 'em with Victims; and proceeded so far in Impiety, as both to vio­late their Faith with Men, and likewise to defraud God of the Honours due unto him. The Priests therefore, who had been wronged, prayed to God that he would punish their Countrymen: And immediately it was done. For a vehement Storm so destroyed the Fruits of the whole Country, that a Measure of Wheat was sold for 15 Drachms.

Perhaps it may be said, that Aristobulus was accepted as a true High-priest; not because he was the Possessor, but because Hyrcanus (tho' by force and com­pulsion) had solemnly and fully resigned to him. If this be alleged, then it follows, that Hyrcanus had no Right to the High-priesthood: yet he, after he was restored by the bare Autority of the Heathen Pompey, (tho' Aristobulus was depos'd *After he had been High-priest 3 years and as many months. by onely the same Auto­rity of that Conquerour) was owned again, and received as a true High-priest by all the Iews: and so he continued for the space of † Iosephus Antiq. l. 20. c. 8. 24 years.

True it is, that Alexander, the Son of Aristobulus, raised a War against Hyr­canus and the Romans. It is likewise true, that Aristobulus himself, having made his escape from Rome, raised another small Army, and endeavoured to re­obtain the Pontificate. But we are not to imagine, that they that joined thus with Aristobulus, and endeavoured to restore him, did therefore do so, because they thought the present High-priest Hyrcanus not truly such. It was in this Case as usually it is in other Kingdoms: where Love, hope of Gain, and a longing after Innovation, engages turbulent Spirits against the present Establishment. Iose­phus assures us, that they that joined with Aristobulus, were induced thereunto by the glory of his Name, the desire of Innovation, * [...]. Antiq. l. 14. c. 11. [...]. and the hopes of Gain. And that it was one­ly Ambition, not any thing of Religion or Conscience, that made Aristobulus endeavour to recover the Govern­ment, cannot possibly be doubted by any Person of Judg­ment. 'Twas the King, and not the High-priest, that raised those Commotions.

[Page 28]§. 7. After the term of 24 years, Hyrcanus was again deposed by Antigonus, the younger Son of Aristobulus; and his Ears were cut off, that by that he might be made uncapable of being restored. Whether Antigonus himself took upon him the Function of the High-priest, together with the Government, we are not well assured. But it was not long before he himself lost his life; and Herod was made King of the Iews. And now we are come to a strange Scene of Tyranny; a surprizing Train of unjust and tyrannical Deprivations. For the fu­ture we shall find very few High-priests, but who were deposed by the Secular Governours: And of those that were deposed, very few were deposed for any just Cause: Yet still the Successor was owned both by Priests and People; as well by the learned, the Sanhedrin, the Scribes, and the Pharisees, as by the un­learned Multitude.

Ananelus, (a)Jos. Antiq. lib. 15. cap. 3. [...], says Nicephorus Patr. in Chronol. But that he was not [...], but both a Jew, and likewise descended from Aa­ron, is clear from Iosephus. If he had not been a descendant from Aaron, the Jews would never have own'd him. a Jew of Babylon, was made High-priest by King Herod, in the room of either Antigonus or Hyrcanus. This Alexan­dra, the Daughter of Hyrcanus, the Wife of Alexander, and the King's Mother-in-law, took very ill, because he was preferr'd to her Son Aristobulus: She therefore wrote to Cleo­patra the Queen of Egypt, and requested her to obtain of Mark Antony the High-priesthood for her Son. Upon this account, to satisfie Alexandra, and likewise his Wife Mariamne, the King deposes Ananelus, and preferrs Aristobulus to the Dignity. And af­ter the Death of Aristobulus, he again restores Ananelus.

Iesus the Son of Phabes, who was made High-priest up­on the death of Ananelus, was * Ibid. l. 15. c. 12. deposed by the same King Herod, and Simon the Son of Boethus succeeded him. And for what was this done? For no other reason, but because the King had a mind to Marry Simon's Daughter; and he thought the Match would seem too mean for him, unless Simon were advanced to that Honour.

The Daughter of Simon, after she was married to the King, being suspected as engaged in a Conspiracy against him; her Father was for that (a) Ibid. l. 17. c. 6. deposed. And to him succeeded Matthias, the Son of Theophilus.

Of this Matthias it is very observable, That (as Iose­phus relates) being polluted with an unvoluntary Vnclean­ness the night before the day of Expiation, Note: Ibid. c. 8. on which he was to officiate in a solemn manner, he made it known; and on that account there was consecrated a new High-priest for that day to officiate in his stead. This, I say, is on this account very observable; because from thence it appears, That both Matthias himself, who accepted of the High-priesthood, which in justice belonged to Iesus the Son of Phabes, and the great Men among the Iews, who owned him as true High-priest, were very Religious Persons, and nice Ob­servers of all necessary Laws. He likewise was displaced by the King upon a Suspicion, that he had given encouragement to certain Zealots, who had pull'd down a Golden Eagle which the King had set up over one of the Gates of the [Page 29] Temple. In his room the King (a) Ibid. c. 15. placed Ioazarus, the Son of Simon Boethus. Ioazarus was extremely hated by all that Party, that favoured the aforesaid Zealots: They pre­sent a Petition to the Tetrarch Archelaus, the Son and Successor of King Herod, and require him in a seditious manner to displace him. But what was their Plea? Not that he was no true High-priest. Tho' in other things they shewed so much Zeal for their Laws, as even to raise a Sedition for the Vindication of 'em, and tho' their Love for the ejected High-priest was very great: yet they allege nothing at all concerning the unlawfulness of sub­mitting to the present Possessor. They (b) Ibid. c. 11. onely allege, that he was not worthy of the Honour; and desire that another more worthy, any one that Archelaus thought fit, might be named to succeed him.

Tho' Archelaus did not hearken to what they demand­ed, yet after some time he (c) Ibid. c. 15. deposed him upon another account; viz. because he suspected him to be somewhat concerned in the raising of a Sedition. To him succeeded his Brother Eleazar. He was likewise (d) Ibid. displaced by the same Archelaus; and succeeded by Iesus the Son of Sie.

Ioazarus, the Son of Simon Boethus, was again restored upon the Death of Ie­sus the Son of Sie: (So it seems; for there is no mention made, that Iesus was remov'd:) But he was again displaced (e) Ibid. l. 18. c. 3. by Quiri­nus, the Roman Prefect of Syria. His Crime no other, but that, upon some account incurring the People's dis­pleasure, there had been a Sedition raised against him. In his place was sub­stituted.

Ananus the Son of Seth, who himself was deposed (f) Ibid. by Valerius Gratus, the Roman Prefect of Iudea. And Ismael the Son of Phabi, was promoted to his Dignity. Ananus flourished long after his Ejectment amongst the Iews, and at the time of our Saviour's Passion was one of their Chief Priests or Rulers, under the High-priest Caiaphas, his Son-in-law. He is mentioned in the Histories of the Gospel by by the Name of Annas.

Ismael the Son of Phabi was likewise remov'd (g) Ibid. by the same Valerius Gratus, who advanced in his stead Eleazar the Son of Ananus but now mentioned.

Him likewise after a years time he deposed, (h) Ibid. and pro­moted Simon the Son of Camith.

After one year he likewise removed (i) Ibid. Simon, and in his place he substituted Iosephus, who was Sir-named Caiaphas.

Caiaphas was (k) Ibid. c. 6, & 7. removed by Vitellius the Roman Prefect of Syria, and Ionathan, another Son of Ananus, was ad­vanced to the Honour of the High-priesthood.

The same was likewise the Fate of Ionathan: For he (l) Ibid. c. 7. after some little time was removed by the same Go­vernour, and his Brother Theophilus was promoted in his stead. He continued after that a worthy Patriot, and at last was (m) Antiq. l. 20. cap. 6. & de Bello Iud. l. 2. c. 12. murther'd by the Roman Governour Felix.

[Page 30] Theophilus was (b) Antiq. lib. 19. cap. 5. displaced by King Herod Agrippa, and Simon who was sirnamed Cantharas, the Son of Simon Bo­ethus, succeeded him.

Him Agrippa likewise (c) Ibid. deposed, and promoted d Ibid. c. 6. Matthias a fourth Son of Ananus, and Brother to the High-priests, Theophilus, Ionathan and Eleazar. The King was desirous that Ionathan should be re-invested with the Honour, as more worthy of it than Simon Cantharas: but Ionathan begged to be excused, and recommended to him his Brother Matthias. By his Answer alone we might judge how far the Iews were from thinking it unlawfull to succeed one unjustly or arbitrarily deposed by the Civil Governour. I am obliged, says he, to your Ma­jesty for your Good-will to me in making me the offer of so great an Honour; but I think it sufficient, that I once wore those sacred Robes; which I cannot now re­ceive with the same Holiness as heretofore I did, since God has judged me unworthy of 'em. He adds, that, if the King required him, he would tell him who was far more worthy of the Honour than himself: That his Brother Matthias was more innocent, and free from all sort of guilt or Imputation, whom therefore he would recommend to him as fit to be preferred to the Dignity.

Matthias was himself (a) Ibid. c. 7. displaced by the same Prince; in his room there was substituted Elioneus sirnamed Can­tharas, the Son of Cantharas.

Elioneus was * Ibid. l. 20. c. 1. removed by Herod the Brother of King Agrippa; and to him succeeded Iosephus the Son of Canei or Camydus (more truly Camithus, the same I suppose with Camith above mentioned.)

Iosephus was depos'd (b) Ibid. c. 3. by the same Herod, and suc­ceeded by Ananias the Son of Nebedeus; he of whom we read in the (c) c. 23. v. 2. Acts of the Apostles, as sitting chief Judge in the Cause of St. Paul.

Ananias was sent (d) Antiq. l. 20. c. 5. & de Bello Iud. l. 2. c. 11. bound by Numidius Quadratus, the Roman Prefect of Syria, to the Emperour Claudius at Rome, there to answer for a Tumult which had been rais'd between the Iews and Samaritans. Upon that account, I suppose, he was depos'd. That he was depos'd is manifest; and he (e) De Bello Iud. l. 2. c. 17, 18. flourish'd after that at Ierusalem, till the be­ginning of the War with the Romans: at what time he was murther'd by the Seditious. In his room succeeded Ismael, (f) Antiq. l. 20. cap. 6. the Son of Phabei (the same, I presume, with Phabi) promoted by King Agrippa the younger.

He was sent by the Iews Embassadour to the Emperour Nero, upon a difference which happen'd between them and the King. There being detain'd as a Hostage, the King (g) Ibid. l. 20. c. 7. promoted in his stead Iosephus, sirnam'd Cabei.

Him he likewise (h) Ibid. deposed, and preferred Ananus, the Son of Ananus.

This Ananus it was that condemned St. Iames, the brother of our Saviour, with others, to be stoned. Upon which account he was after three months (i) Ibid. c. 8. deposed by the same Prince. He [Page 31] continued, after he was deposed, a very great man amongst the Iews, and was one of their chief Commanders in the time of their Wars with the Romans; and was (k) De Bello Iud. l. 2. c. 25, & 28. & l. 4. c. 5, 6, 7. killed at last by the seditious Zealots: highly praised by Iose­phus, as the chief of all the High-priests of that time, for his Justice, Love of his Country, and other excellent Qua­lities.

Iesus the Son of Damneus, who succeeded in the High-priesthood upon the ejectment of Ananus, was (l) Antiq. l. 20. c. 8. deposed by the same King Agrippa the younger, and succeeded by Iesus the Son of Gamaliel.

He likewise (m) Ibid. was deprived by the King, and the Ho­nour was conferred on Matthias the Son of Theophilus. In whose time there broke out that War in which Ierusalem was destroyed by the Romans.

§. 8. This is the Account which Iosephus has delivered down to us, of the se­veral Revolutions in the Jewish Pontificate, from the beginning of the Reign of King Herod. As he himself does not give us the least Hint, That he thought that they who succeeded upon an unjust or a lay-deprivation was no true High-priest; but speaks of 'em always as as true and real High-priests as any other: so it plainly appears from him, That that was likewise the Sense of all the Na­tion of the Iews. How arbitrarily or unjustly soever the Predecessor was depo­sed, both the Priests and the People submitted to the present Possessor. And He who had been unjustly deposed, tho' he came himself regularly to the Ho­nour (which some few of 'em did,) yet raised no disturbance on the account of his Ejectment; but remained at Ierusalem a Member of the Church, and peaceably communicated with his Successor in the Offices of the Temple, and the Sacrifices made to God. Iesus the son of Damneus was the onely High-priest that expressed his Resentments with any thing of undecency. Of him 'tis rela­ted by Iosephus, that when he was deposed, his Resentment was such that it caused a great Animosity between him and his Successor, to that degree, that both going guarded by a company of audacious young men, they themselves not onely proceeded to publick Revilings, but their Attendants likewise threw Stones at one another. This Iesus did, as is manifest, not for any thing of Con­science, but purely through Ambition and Regret: for he himself had been promoted to the High-priesthood when another had been as unjustly deposed.

§. 9. I must not forget to mention that in the time of the Wars with the Romans, that wicked and seditious Party, who called themselves the Zealots, having fortified themselves in the Temple, and excluded Matthias the High-priest, together with all the true Patriots, who were by far the majority, chose by lot one Phannias, a wretched Country-fellow, for High-priest; pretending (though falsly) that that was the ancient method of Election, and that there­fore Matthias was not regularly constituted. This was highly resented, and very deservedly, by all the orderly Party; both the Priests and the People were extremely provoked at so daring an Extravagance. How extremely fla­gitious and wicked those Zealots were, who took upon 'em to tyrannize, and exclude Matthias and the much major part of the People, we may learn from Iosephus, throughout his whole History of the Iewish Wars: and how highly all [Page 32] [...]resented that audacious Fact of theirs in pretending of themselves to elect [...] High-priest, and such a one too as was altogether unwor­thy, the same Author (a) De Bello I [...]d. l. 4. c. 11. largely relates. So great an Im­piety, says he, was to them a mere Sport and Pastime. But the other Priests, who saw afar off the Law ridiculed, could not refrain from Tears, and grievously lamented for the Dissolution of the Ho­nour of the Priest-hood. The People could not bear with so daring an Action, but attempted forthwith to dissolve the Tyranny, &c. It is worthy our observation, that Iosephus, neither in the words which he lays down as his own, nor yet in that Speech which he makes the famous Patriot Ananus speak to the People upon this occasion to excite 'em to the Vindication of their Laws, mentions any thing at all of Matthias: he does not insist on the Injury done to him; he onely complains, that a very unworthy Person was constituted High-priest, and that by such as had no autority to make any High-priest, a tumultuous Part of the Rabble. I observe moreover from this Example of Resentment, that the Iews, if they had been of Opinion, That a High-priest was no true High-priest, because put into the place of another deposed by the Lay­power, would not have failed to express their dislike of one so constituted: since here, in this Case, they express their Abhorrence with so much Zeal and Concern. From thence, I say, it appears, That they thought they ought to submit to a worthy Person put into the High-priesthood by the Prince, altho' the Predecessor was unjustly deposed and still living; tho' they thought they ought not to submit to a Person unworthy, whom a part of the Rabble should advance. Hear Ananus (or Iosephus again, in his Name) expressing his Ab­horrence of the violation of the Laws in this latter Case, in his Speech to the People. The People, says Iosephus, being backward in their endeavour to sup­press the Seditious, because they lookt upon 'em to be impregnable, Ananus stood in the midst of 'em, and looking often towards the Temple, with his eyes full of Tears, he thus spoke: Indeed, says he, 'tis my duty rather to dye, than to see the House of God so extremely prophaned by the feet of flagitious Villains: But yet I live arrayed with the Sacerdotal Vestment, and called by the most holy and vene­rable of all Names. I seem to be desirous of Life, and do not preferr a glorious Death. If I must be alone, and you leave me, I alone will give up my Soul for the Cause of God.

CHAP. III.

That our Saviour himself, and his Apostles, acknowleged and communicated with those High-priests, who were put into the places of others unjustly deposed by the Civil Autority, as true High-priests. Mr. Selden's Con­jecture, That in the Histories of the New Testament, as often as there is mention made of the High-priest, is to be understood not the High-priest, properly so called, but the Prince of the Sanedrin, confuted. A Reply to an Answer of our Adversaries, concerning the Reason why the Jews, our Saviour, and the Apostles submitted to the present Possessor.

WE come now to the Second Part of our Historical Inquiry; to shew, That not onely the Iews, but likewise our Saviour himself, and his Apostles, acknowleged and submitted to the present High-priests, tho' put into the Places of others unjustly deposed by the Civil Autority. Which Practice of theirs is a Rule to us. First of all, I observe, That tho' Caia­phas, who enjoyed the High-priesthood all the time of our Saviour's Preaching, was advanced upon the unjust Deprivation of another; and altho' for many Successions there was no High-priest but what had been so promoted; and the Iews, both the Priests and the People, had all along acknowleged their Au­tority and the Validity of their Sacrifices, yet our Saviour never gave the least Hint concerning the Illegality of those High-priests. If he had not thought those High-priests as true High-priests as the rest, he would doubtless have took some occasion to express his dislike of so great a prophanation; especially since he knew what an Influence this Example and Practice of the Iews must of course have upon his own Followers in future Ages in relation to their Bi­shops. Had our Saviour intended, that a Bishop in those Circumstances should not be acknowleged by his Followers; it is highly probable, that he would have given us an Instruction to the contrary, by expressing some dislike of so great a Prophanation of the High-priesthood. Secondly, I observe, That our Saviour does not onely not reprove the Iews for their owning those High-priests; but, he himself likewise communicated all along with 'em, and expressly owns their Autority. When he was before the High-priest (a)S Iohn c. 18. v. 22. Caiaphas, and was struck by an Officer for answering the High-priest in a manner that seemed not agreeable, and was ask'd how he dar'd to answer the High-priest so; tho' that was a very fair occasion, yet he does not deny his Autority, but expressly owns it by this Reply: If I have spoken Evil, bear witness of the Evil; but if well, why smitest thou me? Thirdly, I observe, That tho' Ananias the High-priest had been ad­vanc'd in the same manner with Caiaphas; viz. in the room of another whom the Civil Governour had arbitrarily deposed; yet S. Paul, the Apostle, expressly owns his Autority, and acknowleges he was God's High-priest. When through [Page 34] Ignorance (according to some Commentators) or Inconsiderateness he had spo­ken revilingly to him, and was ask'd how he dar'd to revile him, being God's High-priest, he approves of the Title that was given him, and repents of his speaking so rashly: *Acts 23.5. I wist not, Brethren, that it was the High-priest: For it is written, Thou shalt not speak Evil of the Ruler of thy People.

§. 2. It may possibly be alleg'd in reply to what has been urg'd, That our Saviour and S. Paul did not own the Autority of Caiaphas and Ananias, as High-priests properly so call'd, but onely as they were Magistrates and Princes at that time of their great Council the Sanedrin. And it is indeed the Con­jecture of our famous and learned Mr. Selden, that in all places of the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles, where there is mention made of the High-priest, we are not to understand the High-priest, properly so call'd, but the chief Governour of the Sanedrin; and where there is mention of two High-priests together, we ought to understand the two chief Rulers of the Sanedrin; viz. the Prince and the Father of the Sanedrin, as they were wont to be called. The full of his Conjecture is this; That in those times when the Iews were govern­ed by Roman Prefects, the High-priest, properly so called, had not, as High-priest, any Power or Autority in Iudicial Matters: That, if he had any, 'twas onely by virtue of his Office in the Sanedrin, as Prince or Father of that Council. And hence, says he, it was, that tho' Caiaphas was the onely High-priest, pro­perly so called, when our Saviour began to preach his Gospel; yet 'tis said in S. Luke, that Annas and Caiaphas were then the High-priests. Annas, says Mr. Selden, is there mentioned first, because he was at that time the Prince of the Sanedrin, and Caiaphas onely the Father. After that, at the time of our Saviour's Passion, Caiaphas was the Prince, and Annas onely the Father: And therefore when our Saviour was first led to Annas; he sent him away to Caiaphas as his Superiour. And on this account likewise it is said in the Gospel of S. Iohn, that Caiaphas was the High-priest that same year. After that again, Annas was the Prince, and Caiaphas onely the Father: And hence it is said in the Acts; And Annas the High-priest, and Caiaphas, and Iohn, and Alexander, tho' Caia­phas was at that time in the proper and original sence the (onely) High-priest.

To this I answer; First, That if we granted Mr. Selden's Conjecture to be true, tho' we could not conclude by the words above mentioned, that our Savi­our owned Caiaphas as a true High-priest, properly so called; yet still our Ob­servation would hold good, That our Saviour himself communicated with the High-priest of that Age, and does not any where hint, That they that in his time Officiated in the Temple as High-priests, were not truly High-priests. And it would however appear, that S. Paul acknowleged the reality of the then High-priests, so call'd in the proper and original Sence; since he owned himself in an Errour, as soon as he was told, that the Person whom he had reviled was GOD's High-priest. For by the Title of GOD's High-priest the Eccle­siastical Office was pointed out to him.

Secondly, I deny Mr. Selden's Conjecture to be true. And against it I offer these following Considerations. First, Neither Iosephus, nor any other Jewish Writer, does any where tell us, that the High-priests, properly so called, were [Page 35] deprived by the Romans of their Power and Autority in *Excepting Capital Causes; which were prohibited by the Ro­mans, not onely to the High-priest pro­perly so call'd, but likewise to the Sane­drin it self. For it was not lawfull for the Iews, when under the Government of the Romans, to put any man to death. Iudicial Matters, and confined to the Offices of the Tem­ple. Mr. Selden does not pretend to the Autority of any Writer. And Iosephus, had there been any such thing, would scarce have fall'd to have mention'd it; especially since he mentions, that in such and such Parts of Iudea there were Courts of Iudicature erected by the Romans. Secondly, Iosephus is so far from warranting any such Opi­nion, that, on the contrary, he speaks throughout his whole History of the High-priests, properly so called, as of Persons of great Power and Autority in Civil Affairs. What he says of Ananus the younger is very express. Having said that the King had deprived Iosephus Cabei of the High-priesthood, and substituted in his place Ananus the Son of Ananus; he immediately adds, † Antiq. l. 20. c. 8. The younger Ana­nus, who was constituted, as we said, High-priest, was a man of a rigid and severe Temper, by Sect a Sadducee; which sort of men is the most severe of all Jews in Judicial Matters. Being of that disposition, he took an oppor­tunity, after Festus (the Governour's) death, before (his Successour) Albinus was arrived in Judea, to call a Council of the Iudges, and commanding James, the Brother of Iesus, to be brought before him, he condemned him, together with some others, and delivered 'em to the People to be stoned to death. This thing extremely displeased all those of the City that were well disposed and zealous for the Laws; and they privately sent Messengers to the King to entreat him to lay his Commands upon Ananus not to do the like for the future, it being a thing that he ought not to have done. Some moreover went to meet Albinus as he came from Alexandria, and suggested to him, That it was not lawfull for Ananus, without his Consent, to call a Council, (That it was not lawfull for the Iews, without the particular Consent of the Governour, to sit Judges in a Capital Cause.) Hereupon Albinus wrote angrily to the High-priest, and threatned him for what he had done. And after three months King Agrippa deprived him for that Fact of the High-priesthood, and be­stowed the Dignity on Jesus the Son of Damnaeus. Here seems to be a plain In­timation, that the High-priest, as such, had autority in Civil Affairs; tho' nei­ther he, nor any other of the Iews, might, without the Consent of the Roman Governour, sit Judge in a Capital Cause. Thirdly, It is likewise confirmed by that frequent and continual Changing of the High-priest under the Romans. For if the High-priests, properly so call'd, were, as such, concerned about the Sacrifi­ces onely, not at all in Matters of Government, how could they so frequently come under the Displeasure of the supreme Civil Governour? Why so frequent­ly turn'd out of their Places? Fourthly, When S. Paul was told that the Per­son, whom he had revil'd, was God's High-priest; that is, High-priest properly so call'd; he strait inferrs, That then he was the Ruler of the People. Fifthly, Those difficult places of Scripture, on which Mr. Selden's Conjecture is bot­tom'd, may well admit of another Explication.

I am so far from denying that the two chief Rulers, the Prince and the Fa­ther of the Sanedrin, might commonly be honour'd with the Title of High-priests, that I almost perswade my self, that in those later Times that Title was common to all those of the Sacerdotal Order who were Members of the Sane­drin. [Page 36] But on this I do not rely. I have one thing more to offer, to account for those many High-priests which are mentioned as flourishing at the same time. Which is this: That the 24 *With this Notion agrees very well that Relation in Iosephus con­cerning the High-priests in the time of King Agrippa, Antiq. l. 20. c. 6. Et ipsi summi Pontifices dissi­dere caeperunt à Sacerdotibus & pri­matibus Hierosolymitanorum Civi­um — In tantum autem exarsit summorum Pontificum impudentia, ut anderent servos suos in areas mit­tere, qui auferrent debitas Sacerdo­tibus decimas, aliquótque pauperiores è sacerdotum ordine alimentorum in­epiâ fame deficerent. Chief Men or Heads of the 24 Sorts or Families of the Priests, into which it is said, in the first of Chronicles, that King David distributed the Priests, were wont to be peculiarly honour'd with the Title of [...], or High-priests. As all in general were call'd [...], Priests; so 'twas natural to distinguish the Heads of the several Classes from the inferiour Priests whom they govern'd, by the Title of [...], High or Chief Priests. That † De hoc vide Lightfooti Heb. & Talmud. exercitat. in S. Lucam, c. 1. v. 5. this Division of the Priests was continued to our Saviour's time, appears from the first Chapter of S. Luke, where 'tis said, That Zacharias, the Father of S. Iohn Baptist, was a Priest, [...], of the Course of [...]bia; and 'tis added: And it came to pass, that while he executed the Priest's Office in the Order of his Course; according to the Custom of the Priest's Office, his Lot was to burn incense when he went into the Temple of the Lord. This is plainly according to the Order and Division made by King David, in the 24th of 1 Chron. where the Houshold of Abia is mentioned as the 8th. principal Houshold of the Priests. Neither ought it to be objected, that in that place of S. Luke, Zacharias is call'd onely Priest, not High or Chief priest: For even the High-priest himself, properly so call'd, is of­tentimes call'd by the bare Title of Priest.

That in those days there were many at the same time entitled High-priests, is apparent from a great many Places both of the New Testament, and likewise of Iosephus. That those learned Men are mistaken, who think that those many High-priests who are mentioned by Iosephus, and in the New Testament, as flou­rishing at the same time, were onely the Expontifices, i. e. those who had for­merly been High-priests, and were then deprived of their Dignity, but not of the Title; That that, I say, is a Mistake, is plain from many places of Iosephus. For he often calls those Men High-priests, who, 'tis certain, had never been High-priests properly so call'd. In his Hist. De Bello Iud. l. 4. c. 12. ‖ [...]. The most approv'd, says he, of the High-priests, Iesus the Son of Gama­la, and Ananus the Son of Ananus. The same Iesus the Son of Gamala, is again entitled [...], High-priest, Ibid. c. 6. & ult. & l. 7. c. 29. for he and Ananus are the [...] there spoken of; yet he had never been High-priest properly so call'd. That he was not the same with Iesus the Son of Gamaliel (as some may be apt to imagine from the Likeness of the Names) is apparent from *P. 1013. [...]. Iosephus's Life, where Gamala and Gamaliel are mentioned together as diffe­rent Men. In the same Book ( viz. the Life of Iosephus) Simon the Son of Ga­maliel, is said to be [...], one of the High-priests. So again, de Bel. Iud. [Page 37] l. 2. c. 42. [...], Iesus the Son of Sappha, one of the High-priests. Yet 'tis certain, that neither of these had been High-priest pro­perly so call'd. Again, l. 7. c. 4. *See the Words in the following Para­graph. our Author Iosephus calls himself, and one Iesus (the Son of Thebuthi) High-priests. That in that place by Iosephus and Iesus the High-priests, he means himself and Iesus the Son of Thebuthi; I gather from hence, That in that place he speaks of those Iews who went over to the Romans in the time of the Wars; and says, that Iosephus and Iesus the High-priests were two of 'em. And that he himself and Iesus the Son of Thi­buthi (who were both Priests) went over to the Romans, he mentions in the Course of his History, which he does not do of any other Iosephus or Iesus. In the same place he mentions Matthias the High-priest, who was killed by Simon the Son of Geiora: And the same he mentions again, l. 6. c. 33. where he tells us, † [...], l. 6. c. 33. That he was the Son of Boethus: He was therefore di­stinct from both those Matthias's who had been High-priests, properly so called.

There are other learned Men who are of Opinion, That the Sons of the High-priests were wont to be honoured with that Title; and that thence it came to pass, that many High-priests are said to be at the same time. But this Opinion I can likewise confute by an Observation out of Iosephus. It is the place already quoted where he mentions those High-priests, &c. who went over to the Romans. The Words are these: ‖De Bel. Jud. l. 7. c. 4. [...] (Sic Cod. MS. Bigotii Ruffini Versioni consonus) [...]. There were some (says he) that took their Opportunity, and went over to the Romans: Amongst them there were two High=priests, Josephus and Jesus; and some the Sons of High=priests, as the three Sons of Ismael, who was beheaded at Cyrene, and four Sons of Matthias, and one of that other Mat­thias, whom Simon the Son of Geïora put to death. Besides them, there went over with the High-priests many other Persons of Quality. I observe, that in this Place the High-priests, whether properly or improperly so call'd, are by that Title distinguished from their Sons. Their Sons therefore were not of course call'd High-priests. It must therefore be some particular Station that distinguished 'em.

According to this Notion which I have laid down concerning the Plurality of High-priests, I interpret that Text of the Acts: And Annas and Caiaphas, and Iohn and Alexander, [...], and all the High-priests or Heads of the several Classes of the Priests (who doubtless were all Members of the Sanedrin) were gather'd together at Ierusalem; taking [...] in the same fence, as when Plato says [...], and as Cicero takes familia, when he says Philosophorum familia. These things I leave to the Consideration of the Learned. Let us now proceed, and see what other Explications the a­foresaid Places of Scripture do admit of.

1. The High-priests (properly so call'd) in the time of the Romans, were not onely very frequently displac'd, but (as it is above observ'd) those two High-priests, [Page 38] who immediately preceded Caiaphas, had been each of 'em deposed af­ter the expiration of one single year; and many of the others were permitted to govern no longer than that time. This I take to have been the occasion of that Expression in S. Iohn, That * [...]. c. 11. v. 49.51. &c. 18. v. 13. Cai­aphas was High-priest for that year. Tho' he knew, that Caiaphas had enjoyed the High-priesthood both for some years before, and likewise for many years after; yet he chuses to conform his Expression to the common Mode. I might offer likewise this Conjecture, That tho' Caiaphas held the High-priest­hood much more than a year, yet his Power and Autority was onely annual, and renew'd to him every year. This Conjecture may receive a Confirmation from that Tradition of the antient Rabbies in their †Quoted by Sel­den de Succes. in Pon­tiff. p. 168. Ge­mara; who speaking of the Times of the Hasmonei, tell us, that in those days the High-priest was chang'd every year. Which tho' it be not true of those Times, yet it is not improbable but that it might be grounded on this, That a little after, under the Romans, at least for some time, there was some such thing; if not always an annual Change, yet an annual Confirmation.

2. When 'tis said in S. Luke, that the Word of God came to Iohn in the time of Annas and Caiaphas the High-priests: And again in the Acts; and Annas the High-priest, and Caiaphas, and Iohn, and Alexander, &c. In both places Annas is first mention'd, and in the latter he alone is call'd High-priest; for no other reason, but because of his great Power and Autority, because he was an Anti­ent, and a more famous Man, had been formerly High-priest himself properly so call'd, was at that time the Father-in-law of Caiaphas, and his great Di­rectour and Guide. And that this was the onely Reason, we may gather from the Scripture it self: For 'tis said, that, when our Saviour was seiz'd, he was car­ried before Annas as a Magistrate; and why before Annas? The reason is there given: ‖ [...]. c. 18. v. 13. Because he was the High-priest's Father-in-law: As much as if it had been said, That there­fore he was carried before Annas, because he, as being the High-priest's Father-in-law, was of very great Power and Autority. That it was an usual thing amongst the Iews to mention an inferiour High-priest improperly so call'd, be­fore the superiour so call'd in the proper sence, and that too without any respect to any superiority on the account of some other Station, appears moreover from a certain Place in Iosephus. * [...]. De Bel. Jud. l. 2. c. 11. Quadratus, says he, the Roman Prefect, sent two of the most powerfull, who were likewise High-priests, Jonathan and Ananias; and Ananus Ananias' s Son, and other noble Jews to Caesar. Ananias there mentioned, in the latter place, was at that time High-priest properly so call'd, as appears from the same †Antiq. l. 20. c. 3. & 5. Author; and Ionathan was one that had formerly enjoy'd that Honour. That Ionathan was not there mentioned before Ananias, because he was his Superiour in some other Station (suppose as Prince of the Sanedrin) I inferr from hence, that in another Place where Iosephus speaks of the same thing, there is no men­tion [Page 39] at all made of Him, but onely of Ana­nias, who was High-priest properly so call'd. * [...]. Antiq. l. 20. c. 5. He sent Ananias the High-priest, and Ananus the Captain, bound to Rome, there to answer before Caesar for what had been done. Another Ex­ample of this nature we have in the Scripture it self, where Zadok the inferiour is mention'd before Abiathar the superiour High-priest: †1 Chron. XV. 11. And David call'd for Zadok and Abiathar the High-priests. Hence some have imagin'd that Zadok even at that time was superiour to Abiathar. But the reason why he is first mention'd, is, Because by being afterwards placed in the room of Abia­thar, and by being the first High-priest of the Temple, and by having his Po­sterity establish'd in the High-priesthood, he was at that time, when that Book was written, much more famous than Abiathar.

§. 3. To what has been said concerning our Saviour and his Apostles, that they acknowleged and communicated with the High-priests of that Age as true High-priests; I add, that it appears moreover from *C. XI. v. 51. S. Iohn, that Caiaphas was accepted and owned by God himself. And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the High-priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all, nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole na­tion perish not. And this spake he not of himself: but being High=priest that year, he prophesied that Iesus should die for that nation, &c. It appears from these words, both that S. Iohn own'd him to be a true High-priest, and that as High=priest, he receiv'd from God the Power of Prophesying.

§. 4. I shall here, for the close of all, take notice of an Answer which some of our Adversaries have been pleased to make, when urg'd with these Examples of the Iews, our Saviour, and his Apostles. Upon this account, say they, the Nati­on of the Iews, our Saviour, and his Apostles, submitted to the present Possessor tho' put into the place of another unjustly deposed by the Secular Autority, be­cause the Temple being in the power of the Secular Magistrate, they could not perform the more Solemn Acts of their Religion, unless they accepted of that High-priest whom the Secular Magistrate had set over the Temple. To this I answer, That if they had look'd upon the present Possessor to be no true High-priest, their being confined to the Temple of Ierusalem, could not have been any inducement to 'em to submit themselves to him, and to communicate with him in the Sacrifices which he offered. If the Secular Magistrate would shut up their Temple, they were not oblig'd to have any Sacrifices, or any High-priest at all: And, because they have now no Temple, they have therefore no Priests or Sacrifices. So, if they had not been permitted to offer up their Sacrifices by a High-priest duly qualified, they would not have thought themselves obliged to offer any Sacrifices at all, any more than they would, if he that was their Governour, should have kept all lawful Sacrifices from 'em, and allow'd 'em only Swine. And how can we ima­gine, that, if God had not look'd upon those High-priests to be true and real High-priests, he would ever have accepted of the Sacrifices which they offer'd, or have sent down upon 'em, as High-Priests, his Spirit of Prophecy? If a Swine [Page 40] had been offer'd, would God have accepted that Sacrifice because the Civil Go­vernour would permit no other to be offer'd?

CHAP. IV.

That the Ancient Christians submitted all along to such Bishops (if account­ed Orthodox) as were put into the places of others deposed by the Secular Power, tho never so unjustly. No Examples, either for or against us, in the three first Centuries, all the Emperors being then Heathens. The Ex­ample of Felix II. Bishop of Rome, tho put into the place of Liberius, un­justly deposed by the bare Autority of the Emperor Constantius, and against Liberius's consent, yet he's own'd by all that accounted him Orthodox, by the Roman Clergy; among them, by the famous Damasus, who was afterwards Pope. He is own'd as Metropolitan by the Bishops of the Di­strict of Rome. His Ordinations are allow'd of as valid, by even his Ad­versary Liberius. He has been all along own'd by the Church, as a Saint, and true Pope.

WHAT was the Practice of the Iews, our Saviour, and the Apostles in relation to the High-priests, who were put into the places of others, unjustly deposed by the Civil Autority, that they all along own'd 'em as true High-priests, and that God himself approved of 'em, we have shewn in the two foregoing Chapters. I come now to shew, in the third place, That the same was the Practice of the Antient Christians throughout all Ages; (I mean, the generality of 'em in every particular Age) with respect to their Bishops, provided only, that they thought 'em upon no other account justly exceptionable.

For the three first Ages the Emperors were all Heathens, and if they deposed any Bishops, they did it to destroy Christianity, and all Bishops in general: It is not therefore to be expected, that the three first Ages should afford us any Examples. But as they afford us no Examples, so neither can our Adversaries produce any one single Example of those Ages, that makes for their Cause. We can say (says our Adversary, the Learned Vindicator) that even in the Age of St. Cyprian, it is very notorious, that they then own'd no such Power of the Se­cular Magistrate to deprive Bishops of their purely Spiritual Power; and that the Church, as a Society distinct from the State, subsisted on their not owning it, even as to a deprivation of their particular Districts and Jurisdictions. It is notorious, and as notorious as any one Tradition of the Catholick Church in those Ages, (not excepting that of the Canon of the New Testament it self) that Christians then, and not only then, but in all the former Persecutions that had been from the times of the Apostles to that very Age, did own themselves bound to adhere to their Bi­shops, when it was notorious withal, that those Bishops were set up and main­tain'd [Page 41] against the consent of the Civil Magistrate. It is as notorious also, that this Adherence of theirs was not onely matter of Fact (which is all our Adversaries pretend here) but a Duty own'd by them as obliging in Conscience, and as the Re­sult of Principles. Again, says the Vindicator: Till our Adversaries can disarm us of the Advantage we have from the Doctrine of the Catholick Church, signified on occasion of these earliest Instances of Schism, in S. Cyprian' s Age, their Author's Collection of later Instances, were it never so pertinent to their purpose, can do them no Service. Should a Person, unacquainted with the Histories and Wri­ters of those Times, read what the Vindicator has here so positively asserted, he could not but conclude, that the three first Ages were full of Examples a­gainst us. But they that are not utterly Strangers to the Practice and the Hi­stories of those Ages, know very well, that all that the Vindicator lays down, is unworthy of so learned a Man; either utterly untrue, or not in the least to his Purpose. That the Christians of those Ages did not own any Power in the Secular Magistrate to deprive Bishops of their purely Spiritual Power, is what we never denied. That they ever disown'd the Power of the Secular Magistrate to deprive a Bishop of his particular District, if he should refuse to acknow­ledge the Autority of that Magistrate; or if upon any other Civil account he deserv'd to be depriv'd, our Adversaries cannot demonstrate. But it is not now our Business to inquire concerning that. We are onely at present to in­quire, Whether ever they refus'd to submit to the present Possessor, because his Predecessor was unjustly depos'd by the Secular Power. That they were wont to adhere to their Bishops, tho' set up and maintain'd against the Consent of the Civil Magistrate, we acknowlege. But what is that to our Adversaries Pur­pose? If they still adher'd to their Bishops, when the persecuting Emperors endeavour'd to root out Christianity by driving away the Bishops, what is that to the Case now before us? Should our Magistrates, like the Persecutors of those Ages, endeavour to destroy Christianity, by depriving us of our Bishops, and by suffering none to be substituted in their places; then those Bishops would be our onely Bishops, and as such we should still adhere to 'em. If in those Ages the Emperours had onely deposed such Bishops as would not own their Autority, or as otherwise deserved to be depriv'd, and had suffer'd other Persons, as worthy, to be put into their Places, who can doubt but that the Christians of those Ages would have done as we now do, as was done in the very next Age, and as the Iews had all along done? I shall answer all that the Vindicator has said, or ever will be able to say, concerning the Practice of those Ages, with this Challenge,

That he shew me any one single Instance of a Bishop disown'd by the Church in those three first Centuries, for being put into the place of another depos'd by the Ci­vil Autority. If he cannot do that: I shall onely desire him to produce the Autority of any one single Writer of those Ages, that directly makes to this pur­pose, That a Bishop so constituted ought not, upon that account, to be own'd. Till that be done, whatsoever he is pleas'd to allege, I shall onely say this of him: Magna dicit, sed nihil probat.

§. 2. The first Instance of an Orthodox Bishop, put into the place of ano­ther Orthodox Bishop depos'd by the Civil Autority, is that of Felix II. Bishop [Page 42] of Rome: who in the Year * Liberius was ba­nished Arbitione & Lolliano Coss. says Sul­pitius Severus, Hist. Sacr. lib. 2. cap. 55. It appears likewise from other Authori­ties, that it was on the year 355. CCCLV. was put Into the place of Liberius, depos'd by the Emperour Constantius. That Liberius was depos'd and banish'd by the bare Au­tority of the Emperour, without any pretence to a Synod, and that too very unjustly; for no other Reason, but because he was Orthodox, and refus'd to comply with him in subscribing to the Condemnation of S. Athanasius, Arch­bishop of Alexandria, is manifest, beyond all doubt, from the Testimonies of all Historians, (a)l. 2. c. 37. Socrates, (b)l. 4. c. 11. Sozomen, (c)l. 2. c. 16. & 17. Theodores, (d) Apolog. ad Const. & Epist. and Solit. p. 834, 835. S. Athanasius himself, (e) Hist. l. 15. c. 8. Ammianus Marcellinus, and (f) Libellus Synodicus, c. 51. Marcell. and Faustinus Praef. ad libell. Prec. Ponti­fical. others.

Felix, who was put into his place, tho' he was rejected by the much greater number of the Laity of Rome, because he was Ordain'd by the Arians; and because he was thought to favour that Party, yet by all such as were satisfied that he was really Orthodox, was own'd and receiv'd, without any Regard had to the Lay and unjust Deprivation of Liberius. Theodoret tells us, that, when he was at Church, there were none of the People of Rome would go into it. But what does he say was the reason? It was not because Liberius had been deposed onely by the Civil Autority, but because he communicated with the Arians. After the great Liberius, says he, there was Ordain'd one of his Dea­cons, nam'd Felix, who indeed had continu'd firm in the Faith of the Nicene Fathers; (g) [...]. yet with those that endeavour'd to subvert it, he freely Communicated: And on that account there were none of the Inhabitants of Rome would go into the Church when he was there. Should we grant what Theo­doret says, that none of the Inhabitants of Rome would communicate with him: Yet this at least we have gain'd by his Testimony, that they would not have refus'd, if he had not communicated with Hereticks. That the reason of the Peoples refusing to submit to Pope Felix, was, be­cause they thought him a Heretick, is expressly asserted by Freculphus Bishop of Lisieux, who flourish'd in the Year 840. Liberius (h) Cognoverat e­tiam Liberius quod Felicis illius successo­ris, clerus & populus urbis communionem velut Haeretici decli­narent, ejúsque solen­niis nequaquam inter­essent. Chron. Tom. 2. l. 4. c. 4., says he, knew that the Clergy and the People of the City declin'd the Communion of his Suc­cessor Felix, as being a Heretick. If Freculphus did not write this from some antienter Historian, (as indeed he could not read so concerning the Clergy, for that is very false, as will by and by appear,) then by that Conjecture it appears, that he did not think there was any other good Reason for which they might separate from him. It appears likewise by the Testimony even of S. Athanasius, [Page 43] that the reason of the People's Aversion to Felix, was, Because he was put in by the Hereticks, and was himself thought one. (a) [...]. Epist. ad Solitar. p. 861. But the People, says he, well knowing the wickedness of the Hereticks, did not suffer 'em (Felix and his Ordainers) to enter into their Churches, but sepa­rated from their Communion. That S. Athanasius thought Felix a Heretick, is a thing not at all to be wonder'd at: For he knew nothing of him, and had never heard of him, but as put by the Arians into Liberius's place. And therefore it was natural for him to think him, as the Peo­ple of Rome did, one of that Party.

But tho' the Generality of the People were so far possess'd with Prejudice against him, through the great and extraor­dinary (b) Ammianus Marcel. says, That the People burned with the love of Liberius; ( ejus amore stagrabat) to that degree, that they that were to carry him away, dar'd not attempt it in the day-time, but were forc'd to do it at mid­night; and even at that time they could not do it without a great deal of difficulty. Affection which they had for Li­berius, as not to be capable of being con­vinc'd, but that he must needs be an Arian: Yet the Clergy of the City of Rome knew him to be throughly Orthodox, and accord­ingly receiv'd him for their Bishop. Let us hear what the Presbyters Marcellinus and Faustinus say of it. (c) Sed co die quo Liberius in ex­ilium proficiscebatur, Clerus omnis, i. e. Presbyteri & Archidiaconus Felix, & ipse Damasus Diaconus, & cuncta Ecclesiae Officia, omnes pariter, praesente populo Romano, sub jurejurando firmaverunt, se vivente Liberio Pontificem alterum nullate­nus habituros. Sed Clerus contra fas, quod minimè decebat (this they say as the inveterate Enemies of Damasus, who was one of that Clerus) cum summo perjurii seclere Felicem Archidiaconum ordinatum in locum Liberii susceperunt. Praefat. ad Libellum Precum. The same day, say they, that Liberius went away into banishment, all the Clergy, that is, the Presbyters, and the Archdeacon Felix, and Damasus Liberius' s Deacon, and all that bare Office in the Church, with one accord in the presence of the People ob­lig'd themselves by an Oath, not to accept of any other Bishop as long as Liberius was living. But the Clergy, notwithstanding their Oath, ac­cepted of Felix the Archdeacon, when Ordain'd in the room of Liberius. Let us likewise hear S. Ierome concerning the same Matter. (d) Liberio in exilium ob fidem truso, omnes Cleri [...] juraverunt ut nullum al [...] sis [...]iper [...]nt, [...]erum quum Felix ab Ar [...]is fuissit in Sa­cerdotium subslitu [...], plurimi p [...]je­raverunt, & post [...]m [...]um cu [...] Fe­lice ejecti sunt, qu [...] Lib [...]rius t [...]di [...] victus exilii, & in haeretica pravi­tate subscriben [...] Roman quasi victo­intraverat. Chron. ad [...] 350. Liberius, says he, being driven into Banishment on the account of his Faith, all the Clergy en­gag'd themselves by an Oath not to receive any other Bishop. But when Felix was Ordain'd their Bishop, the greatest part of 'em broke their Oaths, and were after a years time ejected to­gether with Felix; because Liberius, to free himself from Banishment, had subscrib'd to the Heresy of the Arians, and had enter'd Rome as a Conquerour. 'Twas this general Compli­ance of the Clergy that excited the angry Lai­ty to violate those Immunities and Privileges which had formerly been granted the Clergy of Rome. This occasion'd a new Law for the Confirmation of those Immunities and Ex­emptions, [Page 44] to secure the Clergy of that City from Indigni­ties offer'd 'em by the Laity. Which Law is now extant in the Theodosian †lib. 16. tit. 2. leg. 14. Code, directed by the Emperour Con­stantius to Pope Felix. From these Relations of S. Ie­rome, and the Presbyters Marcellinus and Faustinus, there are three Things to be observ'd. 1. That the Clergy oblig'd themselves by an Oath not to accept of any other Bishop whilst Liberius was living. Now what need had they to enter into such an engagement, if, in their Opinions, and according to the Principles of those Times, Whosoever should be put into Liberius's place whilst alive, would on that account be no Bishop? They knew of no such Doctrine. 2. That tho' they had took an Oath, and tho' Felix was Ordain'd by the Ari­ans, and tho' their Aflection for Liberius was great, tho' all these things con­curr'd to oblige 'em not to receive Felix for their Bishop; yet because they knew him to be truly Orthodox, and no promoter of the Arian Interest, as they expected he would be whom the Arians should Ordain in Liberius's place, they thought themselves oblig'd to act contrary to the Oath they had taken, and to acknowlege him as their Bishop. 'Twas Orthodoxy they had regard to, not by whom he was Ordain'd, or in whose place he was substituted. Their Love for Liberius was inferiour to their Love of the Church. And as for their Oath; when they took it, they did it for the security of the Orthodox Faith: When they saw that such a one was Ordain'd, as they did not expect, one whom they well knew to be no promoter of the Arian Belief, they thought it no longer oblig'd 'em. 'Tis observable, in the Third place, That as almost all the Clergy submitted to Felix, as their Bishop; so after he was expell'd, they still adher'd to him in opposition to Liberius. This is clear not onely by the Testimony of S. Ierome, who says they were ejected together with Felix; but likewise by the more express words of Marcellinus and Faustinus. Here possibly it may be objected: If the Clergy thought themselves in Conscience oblig'd to submit to the present Possessor, because he was Orthodox, Why did they not leave Fe­lix, and return again to Liberius, when he was again the Possessor? The Reason is plain. 'Twas because Liberius, in the time of his Banishment, had subscrib'd to the Arians; and they look'd upon him as no longer an Orthodox Bishop. That Liberius did so, is certain: For tho' some of the Greek Writers, as Socra­tes and Theodoret, do not seem to have known any thing of it; and tho' others amongst the Latins, as Sulpitius Severus and Phaebadius, make no mention of it; yet 'tis positively asserted by S. Ierome in the Words a­bove cited, and (a) De Scriptor. Ec­cles. in Fortunatiano. elsewhere; as likewise by (b) Ad Constanti­on Imp. S. Hilary, (c) Hist. l. 4. c. 3. Philostorgius, (d) l. 4. c. 15. Sozomen, and (e) Epist. ad Solit. p. 837. S. Athanasius. And that indeed was the Reason why Felix was turn'd out, and he again restor'd. For eight years together they ad­her'd to Felix, in opposition to Liberius; i. e. during all the Life of Felix; for (f) Marcel. & Faustinus in Praefat. ad Libellum Precum. so long Felix liv'd after Liberius was restor'd, tho' some say he died in a short time after his Ejectment. After Felix's Death, being by that time better satisfied concerning Liberius's Faith; that tho' he had apostatiz'd, by subscribing to the Arians, yet now again he was Orthodox, they re-unite themselves to him. He [Page 45] pardons them for their breaking their Oath (as he call'd it) they him for his Apostacy.

It is very remarkable, that the famous Damasus, who afterwards was him­self Pope of Rome, was one of those of the Clergy that submitted and adher'd to Felix. At that time that Liberius was banish'd, he was his Deacon, and for some time he accompany'd him in his Banishment: But tho' he lov'd him so well, and tho' he himself had been sworn with the rest of the Clergy, he left him however, and return'd to Rome, and there submitted to the new Bishop Felix. This appears from the Testimony (a) Cum Liberio Damasus Diaconus e­jus se s [...]nulat profici­sci; unde fugiens de itinere, Roman redi­it, ambitione corrup­tus. of the Pres­byters Marcellinus and Faustinus. They add indeed, that what he did was through Ambition: But that is onely a malitious Insinuation, which was very natural to them, they being, when they wrote, the mortal Enemies of Da­masus, and engag'd in a Schism against him: And indeed their whole Book is nothing but a Petition preferr'd to the Emperours against him. With this Testimony of Mar­cellinus and Faustinus, as to matter of fact, agrees that Tradition of the Pontisical, that Damasus was one of those Presbyters that buried the Body of Felix. Hence likewise it came to pass, That, after the Death of Liberius, that part of the Clergy that had formerly adher'd to Pope Felix, chose Damasus Pope in opposition to Vrsinus (or Vrsicinus.) This ap­pears by the Testimony of an antient Register of the Roman Church, as antient as those Times, which (b) Quo mortuo Presbyteri aliquot & Diaconi S. R. E. Liberianae par­tis statim Ursicinum Diaconum E­piscopum constituunt, & à Paulo Episcopo Tiburtino ordinari faciunt. Hi verò qui Felici adhaeserant, Da­masum in Schismate etiam ipsi Pon­tificem Romanum renunciant. Onu­phrius Not. ad Platinam ad vitam Felicis II. ex Registro (ab Ursinia­nis scripto.) Onuphrius Panvinius quotes; and 'tis likewise related by Marcellinus and Faustinus; who give this account of that Af­fair: (c) Tune Presbyteri & Diaconi, Ursinus, Amantius & Lupus, cum plebe sanctâ, que Liberio fidem ser­vaverat in exilio constituo, caepe­runt in Basilicâ Iulii procedere, & sibi Ursinum Diaconum Pontificem in locum Liberit ordinar [...] deposcunt. Perjuri verò in Lucinis Damasum sibi Episcopum in locum Felicis ex­postulant. Liberius, say they, being deceas'd, the Presbyters and Deacons, Ursinus, Aman­tius, and Lupus, with the holy People who had continu'd firm to Liberius in his Banishment, meet together, and Ursinus is chose Bishop in the room of Liberius; but the perjur'd Party (so they speak, as having been themselves Liberians, and as being at that time the mor­tal Enemies of Damasus) chose Damasus their Bishop in the room of Felix. So firmly had Damasus, and the rest of that Party, adher'd to Felix, that here they say, 'twas in Felix's room that Damasus was chose Bishop by that Party. This, I say, is highly remarkable, that not onely the much greater Part of the Clergy of Rome, but likewise the famous and the learned Damasus did not at all doubt of the lawfulness of submitting to the present Orthodox Possessor, tho' the Predecessor were never so unjustly depos'd by the Lay-power. This was both the Opinion and the Practice of one who is wont to be call'd the Great, the Pious, and the Orthodox Damasus; he that for his [Page 46] Piety has been all along honour'd by the Church as a Saint; the Cleri specu­lúmque decúsque, as a (a) Nic. Montacu­tius in versibus de Ro­manis Pontif. Modern Poet calls him; That sanctus and beatus Damasus, as (b) Epist. 30. ad Valentin, Augustum. S. Ambrose and (c) Lib. 6. contra Iulianum, c. 12. S. Au­gustine call him; That Vir laudabilis, as he is call'd by (d)Lib. 10. E­pist. 41. Symmachus; That mentis sanctissimae Vir, as he is styl'd by the Emperour (e) Rescripto apud Sirmondianas Conci­liorum Italiae Epistolas, p. 94. Gratian; That Vir egregius & eruditus in Scripturis; That Ecclesiae Doctor, as he is term'd by (f) Apolog. ad Pammachium propè finem. S. Ierome; the most glorious Damasus, as (g) [...], Theodo­ret Hist. l. 5. c. 10. Theodoret calls him; he that was (h) [...]. Ibid. l. 2. c. 22. adorn'd with all sorts of Vertue, and was always ready to defend all true Apostolical Doctrines, both by his Words and by his * [...]. Ibid. l. 5. c. 2▪ & Libellus Cynodicus, c. 65. Actions, as the same Author says of him; He (in a word) whom the Emperour Theodosius, by a † Cod. Theodos. lib. 16. tit. 1. leg. 2. By Isaac Catholicus, Invectivâ 1. in Ar­menios p. 390, he is reckon'd amongst the [...]. Law, makes the Rule and Standard of all Orthodoxy. It may perhaps be objected, That tho' our Damasus, when he chiefly flourish'd, was accounted so great and so wor­thy a Man; yet in Felix's time he might be but a young Man: and so his Autority will be much less considerable. To this I answer, That in the time of Pope Felix, our Damasus was so far from being a ‖ Damasus was 23 Years old in the time of the Council of Nice. young Man, that, when Felix was made Pope, he was above fifty Years old; and when Felix died, to whom he had constantly adher'd, he was above sixty: And it was not full a Year after Felix's Death before he himself was advanc'd to the Honour of the Popedom. This is manifest from hence, That after he was made Pope, viz. upon Liberius's Death, in the Year 366, in the Month of October, he liv'd, according to those that say (i) Pontificale, Ado in Martyrolog. &c. most, but 18 Years and 2 or 3 Months, more truly but (k)From October in the Consulship of Gratian and Dagalaiphus, in which Damasus was made Bishop, as appears by the Presb. Marcellinus and Faustinus, to October in the Consulship of Antonius and Syagrius, in which he died, as appears by Marcellinus Gomes, are just 16 Years. 16 Years; and yet, when he died, he was as S. Ierome, his Familiar Friend, attests, about (l)Catalogo Script. Eccles. prope octogenarius, which Sophronius translates [...]: So Suidas out of him. 80 Years of Age. He died, as Marcellinus Comes witnesses, in the Month of October, when Antonius and Syagrius were Consuls, that is, in the Year 382. He was therefore 53 Years of Age when Felix was made Bishop, and, when Felix died, he was in the 63d. Year of his Age. Felix, as [Page 47] is above said, was promoted in the room of Liberius, in the Year 355. and was again turn'd out upon the Restauration of Liberius, somewhat less than two Years after: Eight Years (as has been already observ'd) he liv'd after that, and died on the 10th. of the Kalends of December, when Valentinian and Valens were Con­suls, i. e. in the Year 365. Liberius surviv'd Felix but about 10 Months, for he died on the 8th. of the Kalends of October, in the Consulship of Gratian and Da­galaiphus, i. e. the Year following. This is plain from the express Words of the Presbyters Marcellinus and Faustinus. I need not add any thing, to consute that Story, which we find in two fabulous Lives of Pope Damasus, That when Pope Liberius was banish'd, he constituted our Damasus his Vicar to supply his place in his absence; and that he accordingly did so, till Liberius was restor'd. If that be true, then he did not adhere to Pope Felix: But it needs but very little Judgment, were there no good Autority for what we have here laid down, to discover the falseness of that Monkish Story; and 'tis easie to shew how little the Writers of it knew, relating to Liberius's Banishment. I shall take it for granted, that there is no one so Injudicious as to hearken to it.

I must here add, That tho' our Authors, when they speak of the People's Aversion to Felix, are wont to make use of general Terms; and tell us, that all the People refus'd to communicate with him; yet I do not believe, that they ought to be understood strictly, but onely of the much greater Part. That Felix had a very considerable Party, not onely amongst the Clergy, but likewise amongst the Laity, seems to me very probable from hence, That with­in a Year after Felix's Death, when Vrsinus (or Vrsicinus) was chose Pope by the Liberians, and Damasus by the Felicians, there arose a great Contention, not onely among the Clergy, but likewise among the Laity; and Damasus then had the greatest part of the People on his side, and many of 'em were so zealous and violent for him, as that much bloud was spilt. This Schism and Con­tention seems to have proceeded partly from some former Heats and Sidings of the People. I know, that the Presbyters Marcellinus and Faustinus say, that Damasus had brib'd the People with a great Summ of Money: But that is onely a malicious Suggestion, such as might be expected from Persons so much his Enemies. I shall not take notice, that in the Pontifical it is said, That, when Felix was Martyr'd, there suffer'd with him multi Clerici & Fideles; not onely many of the Clergy, but likewise many others of the Faithfull: The Story of his being put to Death is too uncertain, much more the Circumstan­ces of it. Yet at least this appears from that Story, that amongst the Antients 'twas believ'd, that many of the Laity, as well as of the Clergy, adher'd to him.

Having thus shewn, what Reception Pope Felix met with at Rome, I shall shew in the next place, that, tho' he was made Bishop in the room of the unjustly deposed Liberius, yet, first, the Catholick Bishops of his own district communicated with him, and receiv'd him as their Metropolitan. Secondly, His Ordinations were receiv'd and allow'd of as valid, by even his Adversary Libe­rius. Thirdly, The whole Western Church has all along own'd him as one of the true Bishops of Rome.

[Page 48]It cannot be expected, but that he who was Ordain'd by the Arians in the place of one deposed for opposing the Arians, and likewise communicated with the Arians, should by many, be both thought and spoken ill of. But who­ever they were, that did not approve of our Pope Felix, because they thought him an Arian, or because he was ordain'd by the Arians, or because he com­municated with the Arians, their Autority and Judgment make nothing at all against us. He was thought (as has been already observ'd) not onely by the People of Rome, but likewise by S. Athanasius, an Arian. So * [...]. l. 2. c. 37. Socrates calls him expressly, tho' he mentions with all, that others affirm'd, he was Orthodox. So likewise S. Ie­rome in his Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers; tho' indeed in Sophronius's Greek Translation of that Work, the word Arian is not to be found. From this ill Opinion that many had conceiv'd of him, it came to pass, that by some there was this false story rais'd concerning him, That as soon as he was put by the Arians into Liberius's place, he was pu­nish'd by God with the loss of his Eyes, and afterwards died of a Pestilential Disease. This Story is told of him by the Author of that Life of S. Athanasius, which is extant in † Biblioth. Cod. 258. p. 1445. Photius. Hence likewise it was, that the Writer of one of the Lives of Pope Damasius (whom another follows in his Fiction) invented that Story above mentioned, that Liberius made Damasus his Vicar to oppose the Endeavours of the Arians during the time of his Banishment: He had read in S. Ierome, that Felix was ordain'd by the Arian Acacius (so he himself writes) and thence he concluded, that Felix himself was an Arian. Thence he further inferr'd, that some one was appointed by Liberius, to op­pose in his stead, the endeavours of the Arians; and who should that be, but his Damasus? Hence likewise it was, that the Chronologer Marcellinus Comes thought he ought to be excepted out of the number of the Bishops of Rome. That his thinking him an Arian, was the reason of his excepting him, may be gather'd from hence, that he like­wise (a) Damasus Ro­mane Ecclesiae, ex­ceptis Liberio & Fe­lice, XXXV. Episco­pus. excepts Liberius, because he at last had subscrib'd to the Arian Belief. In like manner (b) Chron. ad an. 329 349. S. Ierome calls S. Cyril of Ierusalem, and Meletius of Antioch, Hereticks; and he will not allow 'em a place amongst the Bishops of those Sees; because they were made Bishops by the Arians, and at first seem'd to favour 'em. Yet even in his Time almost all the Greek Church receiv'd 'em into Communion, and very highly esteem'd 'em; and now by both Churches they are honour'd with the Title of Saints, By (c)De Schismate Donatist. l. 2. p. 36. Marco Successit Iulius, Iulio Liberius, Libe­rio Damasus, &c. Optatus Melevitanus and (d) Epist. 165. in the same words with Optatus. S. Augu­stine, where they reckon up the Successions of the Bi­shops of Rome, our Felix is omitted: But from thence it cannot be inferr'd, that they did not own him as one of the Bishops of Rome. For it is not their Design to reckon up all the Popes that had been, but onely to shew, for the Confutation of the Donatists, that at Rome [Page 49] they had had a Succession of Bishops from the Times of the Apostles. Since therefore Liberius was again restor'd, and so was the immediate Pre­decessor of Damasus, as he was the Successor of Iulius, it was not at all for their purpose to make any mention of Felix. It is not the business of Optatus, says a learned Annotator, to give us the Names of all the Popes, but onely the Successions. And it would have been ridiculous in him to have mention'd Felix as the Successor of Liberius, since Liberius not onely out­liv'd Felix, but likewise enjoy'd the Pontificate after his death. Vpon this ac­count likewise, S. Augustine in his 165 th. Epistle, where, upon the like oc­casion, he reckons up the Successions of the Bishops of Rome, makes no men­tion of Felix. Thus the learned Meric Casaubon, tho' he was not at all concern'd whether Felix were own'd as a true Pope or no. 'Tis observ'd by Anastasius, in his Edition of the Pontifical, that the Time of Felix's Government is usually comprehended in that of Liberius. Thus it is in the Catalogues of Kings; if a King has Reign'd twice, the Name of that King who Reign'd, in the Time of the others Expulsion, is very frequent­ly omitted. And this was the reason why Felix is omitted by Theodoret in that Catalogue of the Bishops of Rome which he has subjoin'd at the end of his History.

These things I thought fit to premise, to prevent Mistakes, and to cut off all Objections before-hand. We will now proceed to the Things pro­pos'd to be prov'd.

1. That the Catholick Bishops of his District acknowleg'd him as their Metropolitan, and that others likewise, as many as had an occasion, com­municated with him, may be prov'd by many Arguments: First, From the three Epistles which are extant in Isidorus Mercator, one from S. Atha­nasius and the Synod of Alexandria to him, in which he is own'd as true Bishop of Rome, and address'd to as such; another from him and a Synod at Rome, in answer to that of S. Athanasius; and a third from him and a Synod at Rome, to the Church-Catholick. For tho' it be certain, that all those Epistles are altogether fictitious; yet from them it is manifest, that at that time in which they were written, viz. about 900 Years ago, it was taken for granted, that Felix was generally own'd by all Catholick Bi­shops. 2dly, From the Autority of the Pontifical, in which it is said, that he call'd a Synod of 48 Bishops, and condemn'd the Emperour Constantius and the Arians. And this is affirm'd not onely in the Vulgar Pontifical ascrib'd to Anastasius, but likewise in that which was publish'd in the time of the Emperour Iustinian the Elder, above 1150 Years ago; viz. about the Year 534. If it be doubted whether there were really such a Synod call'd by Pope Felix, as the Pontifical affirms; yet at least thus much must be granted, that near 1200 Years ago there was an undoubted Tradition in the Church, that the Bishops of the District of Rome acknowleg'd him for their Metropolitan. But 3dly. It appears from the Inscription which was found on his Body, when that was took up at Rome in the Time of Pope Gregory XIII. that there was such a Synod call'd by him. The In­scription [Page 50] was this *See Daronius's An­nals, an. 357. §. 50.: CORPVS S. FELICIS PAPAE ET MARTYRIS QUI DAM­NAVIT CONSTANTIVM. The afore­said Pope Gregory XIII. having order'd the Roman Martyrology, to be re­view'd and corrected, Baronius was very zealous to have our Felix omit­ted, as doubting of his being a Martyr, (and because he thought, that his being own'd as one of the true Popes, might prove a good Argument against some Pretensions of the Church of Rome:) In this he was by many oppos'd, especially by the Card. Iulius Antonius Sanctorius. In the midst of this Contention the Body chanc'd to be found, together with the Bo­dies of some other Saints, (by a Miracle, say the Popish Historians,) and that put an end to the Controversy. Tho' there's no one more apt than my self to suspect the Integrity of Romanists in things of this Nature; and tho' the time in which this Body was found is enough to make one suspect at first thought, that the Inscription of that Body which was found, was onely a pia fraus of the Cardinal Sanctorius's Party: Yet if we feriously consider, 'twill be hard to think it an Imposture, since all the great Men of Rome saw the Body, amongst them Baronius, who owns himself confu­ted by it. 'Tis true, I do not believe that the being a second time bap­tiz'd was that for which Constantius was condemn'd by that Synod: But that is not said in the Inscription; and 'twas onely the mistake of the Au­thor of the Pontifical. Neither do I believe that that Synod was call'd be­fore Pope Felix was ejected: I rather think that 'twas after he was eject­ed, and that it consisted of s [...]al [...] Bishops (scarce so many, I suppose, as 48.) as adher'd to him, in the time of his Ejectment, in opposition to the laps'd Liberius. Neither, Lastly, do I believe, that Felix was ever put to death. The whole truth I take to be this: He was therefore call'd a Martyr by his Adherents, and so entitled in the above-said Inscription, be­cause he was ejected by the Hereticks, and suffer'd †That the Title of Martyr was fre­quently, given to such, tho' they died a natural Death, See Forbes [...]i Instruct. Hist. Theol. l. 12. c. 2. &c. and Suiceri Thesa [...]ltus. much for his Faith, and died a Confessor. Hence af­terwards arose that Tradition concerning his being put to death, the Title of Martyr being understood by Posterity in the more common sence. 4thly. It is said in both the Pontificals, as well the antient as that ascrib'd to Anastasius, that Felix in his time Or­dain'd 5 Deacons, 21 Presbyters, and 18 (or 19) Bishops. And the truth of this cannot with any shew of Rea­son be question'd; since 'twas easy for the Author to know it by the publick Registe [...]s. 5thly. I observe, that amongst all the antient Writers, who have mention'd his succeeding Liberius, tho' he go­vernd ‖The Pontifical says a year, and two months. It is cer­tain from Theodoret, S. Athanasiu [...] Epist. ad Solit. p. 837. & Apolog. ad Const. p. 807. and the Presb. Marcellinus and Faustinus, that 'twas somewhat more than two years that Liberius was in Banishment. above a year, and tho' they generally men­tion that the Laity of Rome refus'd to communicate with him; yet not a word in any, that the Bishops [Page 51] of the District of Rome refus'd to own him for their Metropolitan. Had the Bishops of his District refus'd to own him, it must needs have made such a noise, as that some one or other would have mention'd it.

2. That our Felix Ordain'd many Bishops and others, is apparent, not only from the express Testimony of the Pontifical, but like­wise from Reason it self, since he govern'd, as I but now said, a­bove the space of a Year, and Liberius was in Banishment above two Years: Now that all those whom Felix had ordain'd, were re­ceiv'd and approv'd of by Liberius when he was agen restor'd, is appa­rent from this, That there is not a word in any Author of so much as a Question rais'd against 'em And of this Baronius himself, tho' no great Friend of Felix's, does not at all doubt.

I here observe farther, First, That the Schismatical Presbyters, Marcellinus and Faustinus, and the Writer of Onuphrius's Register, who likewise liv'd in those days, tho' they were all Vrsinians, and hated all those that adher'd to Felix, yet giving an account what became of the Clergy that adher'd to Felix, they onely say, that after the death of Felix they * Post annos octo defunctus est Felix, Liberius misericordi­am fecit in Glericos qui perjuraverant, e­osque in locis propriis suscepit. had their Perjury pardon'd by Liberius, and so were restor'd to their former Stations in the Church. They do not say, that they were pardon'd or absolv'd for any Sin committed in receiving a second Bishop, but that they were pardon'd for their Perjury. The other, it seems, was not reckoned a sin by either Liberius or those Writers. Secondly, That it appears from the Historian Philostorgius, that Felix, after he was ejected was still accounted a Bishop. Felix, says he, who in the absence of Liberius had been consecrated Bishop of Rome, when Li­berius was agen restor'd, retir'd to another place, † [...]. l. 4. §. 3. enjoying indeed the Honour and Title of a Bishop, but without any District. There are some of the Moderns, as Platina (if I well remember) and others, who say, That after he was depos'd at Rome, he was made the Bishop of some other Place; but that indeed is not true. They seem to have been deceiv'd by those words of Theodoret; [...].

3. That the Church of Rome, and withall, the whole Western Church has all along own'd him for one of the true Bishops of [Page 52] Rome, appears from all their antient Catalogues, Martyrologies, and Breviaries. By all which it is manifest, not onely that they have all along own'd him as a true Bishop of Rome, but likewise, that they have all along worship'd him as one of their *The Day dedi­cated to him is the 29th. of Iuly. Saints. Vt verus Pontifex habetur (says the Learned Papebrochius) memoratus in omnibus Ca­talogis, Breviariis, & Martyrologis, & haclenus in Ecclesia officio proprio colitur. Hence it was that those Epistles were forg'd in his Name, which are extant in Mercator amongst the Epistles which are forg'd in the Names of the rest of the Popes. Hence likewise in the antient Collectors of Canons, such as Ivo Carnotensis and † Decreti parte 2. Caus. 2. Qu. 6. c. 16. & Caus. 3. Qu. 3. & 5. c. 11. Gratian, there are extant certain Decrees in his Name, as Authentick and good Law, taken out of the aforesaid Epistles. He is own'd as a Saint and true Pope by the Historians, Martinus, an Arch-bishop of Poland, in the Thirteenth Century; Marianus Sco­tus in the Eleventh Century; Albo Floriacensis in the Tenth; Anasta­sius the Librarian, and the German Author of the Book de Vitis Pon­tificum attributed to Luitprandus Bishop of Cremona, in the Ninth. So likewise in the antient Martyrologies. In the genuine Martyrology of our Venerable Bede near 1000 Years ago, and in those of Florus and ‖Writ in Verse, and erroneously a­scrib'd to Bede un­der the Title of E­phemerides. Wandelbertus, he is men­tion'd. In others more fully. In the Roman pub­lish'd by Baronius: Sancti Felicis II. Papae & Mar­tyris. In that of Vsuardus: Natalis Sancti Feli­cis Papae, qui à Constantio Augusto à sede suâ deje­ctus, &c. In that of Notkerus: Nativitas sancti Felicis Papae. Again, Ejecit Constantius sanctum Felicem Vrbis Episcopum de sede Episcopatûs sui. In that of Ado Arch-bishop of Vienna, who flourished in the Ninth Century, as did likewise Vsuardus and Notkerus: Beati Felicis Pontificis. Agen in the same words with Notkerus, Ejecit Imp. Con­stantius, &c. Agen, Depositus sanctus ac beatissimus Papa Felix. In that of Rabanus Arch-bishop of Mentz, who flourish'd in the begin­ning of the same Age; Passio Felicis Papae & Martyris. In another ascrib'd to Bede, and extant amongst his Works, but not truly his; S. Felicis Pontificis. In the Sacramentarium of Pope Gregory the Great, who flourish'd in the Year 590: Beati Felicis Martyris tui at­que Pontificis intercessio gloriosa nos protegat. To these I add the anti­ent Pontifical, which was writ (as I said) above 1150 Years ago, a­bout the Year 534, in which he is mention'd as a Saint, and one of [Page 53] the true Popes. And here agen I must repeat what has been already observ'd, That so great was the Honour which the Church had for him in the time of Pope Damasus, that 'tis said by the Vrsinian Pres­byters Marcellinus and Faustinus, that Damasus was chose, not into the room of Liberius, but in Felix's place. Tho' that cannot be true, since, as those Presbyters themselves attest, those of the Clergy who chose Pope Damasus, had after Felix's death, been reconcil'd to Libe­rius, and they did not pretend to chuse Damasus till after the decease of Liberius: Yet (I say) it is manifest from that Insinuation, that all Damasus's Party, that is, the Church, at least the Clergy of the Church, had still a great honour for Felix, and still lookt upon him as one of their true Popes.

As he is own'd for a true Pope by the whole Western Church, so likewise in the Eastern by Nicephorus the Patriarch of Constantinople, who flourish'd in the Year 806. and that too, tho' Nicephorus * [...]. well knew, that he came into the place of Liberius when Liberius was unjustly depos'd by the Emperour. In his Chronology, as Liberius is reckon'd the 35th. Bishop of Rome, so our Felix is call'd the 36th.

To all this I add, That among all the antient Writers, who have mention'd our Felix his succeeding Liberius, there is not so much as one, that either says expressly, or gives any Hint, that upon that ac­count, it was not lawfull for the Church of Rome to submit to him: or that upon that account he could not be a true Bishop. The Schis­matical Presbyters, Marcellinus and Faustinus, are the onely Writers that have any thing looking that way. They say, that the Clergy of Rome accepted of Pope Felix contra fas quod minimè decebat cum sum­mo perjurii scelere. But it 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 'tis 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 [Page 54] 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, † [...] l. 4. c. 15. To the same purpose Nicephorus Callist. l. 9. c. 37. out of Sozomen. 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 ‖ Sozomen had heard that Felix was still own'd by one part of the Clergy; and thence he inferr'd, that he and Liberius were Bishops together in Rome. 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. 'Tis said in the Pontifical, that when Liberius was depos'd, 'twas 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 * Chron. parte 2. Tit. 9. c. 2. 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 [Page 55] 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 * Pag. 7. Further Account of the Baroccian MS. and the Author of the † Pag. 60. 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. 'Tis 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 [Page 56] 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 continu'd still Bishop of Poictiers, what is that to the Cause now before us, since there was not any Orthodox Person made Bishop in his stead? So far was he from having an Orthodox Person for his Successor, that (while he was in Banishment) he had not any Successor at all. He was never deposed, but barely banish'd: and accordingly after four years time he was again restor'd.

CHAP. V.

The Catholicks of Alexandria reject Lucius, because he was an Arian, not because his Predecessor Peter, was unjustly deposed by the Emperor. Our Adversaries Doctrine not known to the said Peter. §. 1. S. Briccius of Tours deposed by the People. Yet Justinian and Armentius his Suc­cessors, are own'd as true Bishops of Tours Armentius is own'd as true Bi­shop by S. Briccius himself, though he had never given up his Right, but had always claimed it. §. 2. S. Euthymius refuses to communicate with Theodosius, Patriarch of Jerusalem, because he was a Heretick, and had em­brued his Hands in the Bloud of many Persons, not because the Patriarch Juvenalis, whose See he had usurpt, was still living. Theodosius's Ordina­tions are allow'd of as valid. §. 3. Acacius, Patriarch of Constantinople, refuses to communicate with Timotheus Aelurns, not because he was put in­to the place of Timotheus Salofaciolus, unjustly deposed by the Heretical Vsurper Basiliscus, but because he was a Heretick and a Parricide. §. 4. Jo. Talaias, the Orthodox Patriarch of Alexand. being deposed by the bar [...] Authority 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 Constantinop. 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 for sook 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 Emperour 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 Emperour 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 [Page 58] 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.

IN the year CCCLXXI. Peter tho Successor of S. Athanasius in the See of A­lexandria, because he was Orthodox, was violently deposed by Palladius the prefect of Aegypt; and the High-Treasurer Magnus, by the order of Valens the Arian Emperour, and Lucius an Arian was made Bishop in his place. That there was not any Synod concerned in his deprivation, is plain beyond all controversy from what is related by (a) Hist. l. 4. c. 21. Theodoret, (b) L. 4. c. 21. Socrates, (c) L. 6. c. 19. Sozomen, and by (d) Apud Theodo­ret. l. 4. c. 22. Vide quoque libel. Synodi­cum Syn. 70. Peter himself in that Epistle, which he wrote to the Catholick Church concerning his Deprivation. Though Peter was in this manner deposed, yet the Catholicks of the Church of Alexandria, did not upon that account keep off from Lucius's Communion, but only upon the account of his being a Heretick. This I gather from those words of Theodoret (e) [...].. But the People having been nourished with the Do­ctrine of Athanasius, when they saw that quite contrary Food was offer'd them, kept off from the Churches. Not a word any where that the unjust deprivation of Peter, was one of the Causes of their Separation.

And Peter himself in the aforesaid Epistle, though with a great deal of Rhe­torick he endeavours to set forth the Crimes of Lucius, and to excite all the Church, to whom he writes, to the greatest abhorrence of his Actions, yet he does not raise this Objection against him, that he was thrust into the Throne whilst he himself was yet living. He only complains, 1st. That he was a Heretick, and 2d. That he was made Bishop without any Regular and Customary Proceedings; That he had bought the Bishoprick, like a secular Office, with Money; was created Bishop neither by a Synod of Orthodox Bishops, nor by the Votes of the lawful Clergy, nor by the Postulation of the People, as the Laws of the Church required. There were with him no Bishops, no Presbyters or Deacons, no multitudes of People, no Monks going before him singing Hymns. He thought (as it seems) that there was no thing more requir'd for the making his Successor true Bishop of that See, but Orthodoxy and a Regular Election.

§. 2. In the year CCCCXXXV. S. Briccius Archbishop of Tours, the Succes­sor of S. Martin was deposed, after he had been Bishop above 32 years, by the (f) Quâ de re sur­rexit omnis populus Tu­ronorum in iram, & totum crimen super E­piscopum referunt, vo­lentes eum unanimiter lapidare. — illis verò non credentibus, sed contradicentibus, trahitur, calumniatur, ejicitur—hoc enim ejecto Iusti­nianum Episcopum constituunt, &c. Greg. Turon, Hist. l. 2, cap. 1. Inhabitants of that City. They suspected him to be guilty of Incontinence, and although it was only a suspicion, yet out he must go. In his Room they plac'd one Iustinian, who shortly after dyed; then they made one Armentius their Bishop, who conti­nu'd in that See till he died, for near the space of seven [Page 59] years. In the mean time Briccius remained at Rome, there making his complaint to the Pope, and (*) V. Greg. Turon. loco cit. endeavouring to be restor'd. So far was he from consenting to the consecration of Armentius. I here observe, that the Historian Gregory who was one of the Arch-bishops of that See, and flourish'd in the year 573. when he treats of this Affair, makes no manner of mention of a­ny disturbance in the Church occasion'd by this injustice, not a word to the contrary, but that Armentius was readily acknowleged by all of that district, and by all the Bishops of France. Had there been any disturbance, he could not but have known it, and if he had known it, he would not have fail'd to have mentioned it; for he himself very highly resents the injustice which the holy Briccius suffer'd. He tells us, that Iustinian's dying so soon, was a Iudgment of God upon him. He thinks it so, because (as he himself relates) God had wrought certain Miracles by the hand of Briccius to convince the People of his Innocence, yet they would not be convinc'd, and notwithstand­ing those great Miracles turn'd him out, and made Iustinian their Bishop. I observe in the 2d. place, that the Historian, who himself (as I said) was Bi­shop of that See, and moreover a Saint, reckons Iustinian and Armentius in the Catalogue of his predecessors the Arch-bishops of Tours. For though in that Catalogue of the Bishops of that See, which is added at the end of the last Book, Briccius is call'd the Fourth, and Eustochius, who succeeded upon his Death, is call'd the Fifth Bishop from the first Institution of the See, yet throughout the whole History, Iustinian and Armentius are reckoned in the number. For (a) L. 2. c. 14. Per­petuus who succeeded Eustochius, is call'd the Fifth Bishop after S. Martin. Virus, who was the 2d. from Eustochius, is call'd the (b) L. 2. c. 26. 7th. Bishop after S. Martin. To him suc­ceeded Licinius, and him he calls the (c) L. 2. c. 39. Denique migrante viro (so it must be read, not Eustochio) Turo­norum Episcopo, octavus post sanctum Martinum, Licinius Turonicis E­piscopus ordinatur. 8th. Bishop after S. Martin. Now unless Iustinian and Armentius are inclu­ded in the Number, Perpetuus will be only the 3d. Bishop after S. Martin, Virus only the 5th. and Licinius only the 6th. Thirdly, I observe, that S. Briccius, though he was so unjustly deposed by barely the Violence of the Peo­ple, and though he never had given up his right, but had all along endeavour'd to recover it, yet he himself own'd Armentius to be a true Bishop of Tours, and calls him his Brother. The Historian tells us, that when he was sent back to Tours by the Pope to be restor'd, as he lay at some distance from the City, Armentius died, and the death of Armentius being reveal'd to him by a Vision, he thus cried out to his Company; Arise quickly, that we may go to the Funeral of (d) Ait suis, Surgi­te velocius, ut ad tu­mulandum fratrem no­strum Turonicum pontificem occurramus. our Brother the Bishop of Tours.

§. 3. In the year 452. Iuvenalis being Patriarch of Ierusalem, Theodosius a cer­tain turbulent Monk, and an Adversary of the Council of Chalcedon, had (e) Vide Imp. Mar­cia [...] Epistolam apud alla concilii Chalced. parte 3. c. 3. p. 851. & ejusdem Epistolam a­liam, ibid. c. 9. p. 856. Vide & Evag. l. 2. c. 5. & Cyrillum Scythop. V. S. Eu­thym. p. 55, 56. by the slaughter of a great many Persons, got himself to be ordained Patriarch of that [Page 60] See, though Iuvenalis was still alive, and had never been deposed by any Synod, nor yet by the Emperour himself; yet the only Objection that the (c)S. Euthymius was at that time in the 76th. Year of his Age. V. Vitam ejus, p. 54. Venera­ble, the Great, and Orthodox Abbot, S. Euthymius, made against him, when urged to acknowlege him as Patri­arch, and to communicate with him, was this, That he had been guilty of many Murders, and was likewise a Heretick. (d) [...], Ib. p. 56. God forbid (says he) I should approve of his Murders, and ill Opinions. Concerning Iuvenalis, that he had not been Synodically deprived, and that therefore it was not lawful to acknowledge a Successor, not a word. Theodosius had ordained many Bishops in the room of those Orthodox Bishops who were not yet returned from the Council, and all places that were vacant he filled up. After some little time, he was deposed by the Emperour, and Iuvenalis being restored, was commanded by the Emperour to depose all those Bi­shops whom he had ordained. But though he had usurpt▪ the See after so (e) [...] Cyril. loc. cit. barbarous a manner, and though they that had been ordained by him, were as uncanonically. ordained as possibly they could be, yet (f)He is reckon­in the Catalogue of the Bishops of I [...]rusalem, by Nicephorus Patriarch of Constantinople. [...]. they who were Orthodox, were still accounted true Bishops, and if their Predecessors were dead, were still continued in their Sees. This appears from the Example of (g)There fell off, says Evagrius, l. 3. c. 6. from the Communion of Timotheus Aelurus, [...]. Theodotus Bishop of Ioppa, who, though he was ordained by him, yet continued long after that time Bishop of that See, and was owned as such by the Orthodox.

§. 4. Timotheus Aelurus, a notorious Eutychian Heretick, who as such had been formerly condemn'd by a Synod (h) Epist. Episcopo­rum & Cler. Aegypti, ap. Evag. l. 2. c. 8. of all the Bishops of Aegypt, was in the year 457. the 1st. of the Empe­rour Leo, made Bishop of Alexandria, by the People of that City, ( Proterius the Orthodox Bishop being then (i)Ibidem. living and in full possession of the See) and ordain­ed by only two Bishops, and those besides Hereticks, and as such judicially condemned. Being made Bishop after this irregular man­ner, his Predecessor Proterius was in a little time after murder'd, as 'twas thought, by his procurement. After some time he was (k) Evag. l. 2. c. 11. deposed and banish'd by the Authority of the Em­perour, and the Judgment of the Bishops of the Catho­lick Church, and an Orthodox Person, Timotheus Salofaciolus, was constituted his Successor. After 18 years Salofaciolus was (l)Ibid. l. 3. c. 4. deposed by the sole Authority of the Heretical Usurper Basili­scus, and Aelurus being recall'd from Banishment, was a­gain [Page 61] made Bishop of Alexandria. Whilst he was at Constantinople with the Empe­ror Basiliscus, Acatius the stout and Orthodox Patriarch of that City, would not suffer him to enter into any of his Churches. And why not? Not because he was substituted in the room of one unjustly deposed by the bare Autho­rity of Basiliscus, but because he was a Heretick and a Murderer. So Pope Simplicius, in one of his (b) Epist 6. E ^t dilectionis tuae laudan­do constantiam multum nobis, imo ipsi Domino placere memoravinus, quod damnatum homi­nem, non solum fidei, sed eti [...]m parrici [...]ii causâ nullam Constantino, olis Ecclesiam introire permiseris. Epistles to Acacius. Thy constancy, says he, is praise worthy both in the sight of God and in ours, in that thou wouldst not suffer that condemn'd Person to enter into any of the Churches of Constantinople, not only because he was a Heretick, but likewise because he was a Parricide.

§. 5. In the year 482. Iohannes Talaias (or Tabennesiotes) an Orthodox Patri­arch of Alexandria, was deposed by the Emperour Zeno, and Petrus Mongus, one who had been formerly deposed from that See for being an Eutychian, but had now subscribed to the Orthodox Faith, and had been absolv'd by Acacius the Patriarch of Constantinople was made Bishop in his stead. The reason why Talaias was deposed, was this, There having been great Seditions rais'd at Alexandria in the elections of the Patriarchs, the Emperour had been forc'd to deprive that Church and People of their ancient Right of Election, and to take upon him to constitute their Patriarch himself. The Patriarch Timotheus Salofaciolus being again restored to that See, sends (c) Liberatus Diac. Brev. c. 16. Evag. l. 3. c. 12. Talaias, his Oeconomus or the Treasurer of the Church, to Constantinople to the Emperour, to thank him for his re­storing him, and withal to beg of him, that after his ( Sa­lofaciolus's) Death, the Church of Alexandria might have a free Election. This the Emperour grants, but suspecting that Talaias might have took upon him to negotiate this Affair, that so he himself might obtain the dignity, he made him take an Oath that he himself would never endeavour to obtain it. Talaias returning home with the Emperour's Grant, was, after the Death of Salofaciolus, chosen Patriarch by the Orthodox party, and the Emperour disli­king the Election, deposed him as guilty of Perjury. That Talaias was real­ly guilty, he himself would never acknowlege, alleging that it was only because he was Orthodox, that he was deposed. But guilty or not guilty, deposed he was, and that too by barely the Emperour's Authority, as appears from (d) L. 3. c. 12, 13. [...], &c. Evagrius, (e) Breviario c. 17. Quos jucundissime suscepit Acacius, & imperatori praesentavit, & persuasit ei, ut scriberet Apollonio Augustali, & duci Perganio, ut Ioannem ab Alexandrina sede, quasi ean contra suum jusjurandum, quod in regiâ civitate dedit, arripuisset, expelle­ret. Ioannes Talaia judicatur à Zenone episcopatu pelli. Vide c. 18. Liberatus Diaconus, and the Epistles of Pope (f) Verbis infrà adducendis. Gelasius, that he [Page 62] had been canonically chosen and ordain'd, and to all in­tents and purposes, fully confirm'd by the Catholick Bishops of the district of Alexandria, is apparent from an Epistle of Pope (a) Epist. 17. dat. mense Iulio an. 482. Nuper ab Aegyptiâ Sy­nodo quae & numero plu­rima, & fidei Catholi­cae esset communione suffulta, at (que) ab ipso omni propemodum clero Alexandrinae sedis ad nos ex m [...]re relatio missa patesecit, sancte memoriae fratrem quon­dam & coepiscopum nostrum obijsse Timotheum, in (que) ejus vicem consonâ fidelium voluntate Ioannem, cui ad sa­cerd [...]tium constare crederentur omnia, subrogatum, &c. Simplicius to Acacius, as likewise from (b) Brev. c. 17. Vide quoque Gesta de nomine Acacii. Liberatus Diaconus, who tell us besides, That he had sent about his Synodical Epistles, and that after he was e­jected he never surrendred up his Right, but still laid claim to the See of Alexandria, is what I need not en­deavour to prove. His fleeing to Rome to the Pope, that so he might be restored by his means, is notorious. So far was he indeed from resigning, that after the death of the Emperour Zeno, he applyed himself to the Emperour Anastasius, and (c) Theophanes Chron. Nicephrus Call. l. 16. Victor Tun. ad Cons. Asterii & Praesidii. desired him to restore him.

Though Talaias had been thus Arbitrarily Deposed by the Emperor, with­out any Synod, and without any Trial or Hearing, and had never surrender'd up his Right: Yet I observe,

First, That all they who thought his Successor Mongus a true and sincere Convert to the Orthodox Faith, and in that respect sufficiently qualified, very freely acknowleged him, and Communicated with him.

1. Acacius the Patriarch of Constantinople did so; though in all other Cases he had always shewn a great deal of Courage, and Resolution, and Zeal for the Orthodox Faith. When the Usurper Basiliscus had Issued out a Decree against the Council of Chalcedon, and in Obedience to that at least 500 Bishops had deserted the Orthodox Profession, he stoutly stood up for the Faith, and so (d) Evag. l. 3. c. 7. Theodorus Lector. l. 1. p. 556. Autor Vi­tae S. Danielis Stylitae ap Su [...]ium in Decemb. c. 41. Acacium qui tunc sedem tenebat pontifi­calem, qui rectam qui­dem defendebat ratio­nem, illius autem dog­matum tempestati spi­ritus ferv [...]re & di­cendi libertate, vehe­menter resitebat, vult Basiliscus morte mul­clare. briskly opposed him, that the Tyrant was forced to recall his Edict. At the same time when Aelurus the He­retical Patriarch of Alexandria would have gone to Church at Constantinople though supported and patroniz'd by the Emperor, yet he would not permit him to enter into any Church there. Upon this account (as has been above observ'd) his Constancy is highly prais'd by Pope Simplicius; And by the same Pope he is (e) Epist. ad Archi­mandritas Constantinop. elsewhere, Intituled, Probatissimus Sacerdos. And even at that time that he Com­municated with Mongus he retain'd the same Zeal, and could never be persuaded to Communicate with one whom he himself thought an Eutychian, or an Enemy of the Council of Chalcedon. When Calendion the Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch was turn'd out by the Emperor, and a Notorious Heretick, Petrus Gnapheus, was made Patriarch in his place, there was nothing (f) Cui us (que) in fi­nem se non communicasse gloriabatur Acacius. Gelasius P. 1. Epist. ad Orient. Episcopos. could ever persuade him to receive him into Communion; and he joyn'd (g) Epist. Faelicis III. ad Gnapheum & ad In p. Zenonem, & Acacii ipsius Epistolae ad Gnapheum ap. Tom. 4. Concil. with Pope Felix III. to Depose him. And the same Zeal [Page 63] he shew'd in Respect to Mongus himself: For as soon as he had heard that Mongus had Condemn'd the Council of Chalcedon, he (a) Evag. l. 3. c. 16. sent away immediately to Alexandriae to enquire into the Truth of the Accusation. Whether Mongus had really done so, is uncertain: Certain it is, That he produced to Acacius's Messengers cer­tain Acts to prove himself Innocent; and that if he had appear'd to have been Guilty, Acacius would have utterly rejected him. If the Writers of the Church of Rome have Condemn'd Acacius as an ill Man, and a Heretick, we know that they did it, not because he really was so, but because he Com­municated with Mongus, whom the Popes of that time accounted and Con­demn'd as a Heretick: And we know very well why the Popes did so; They knew that Mongus had (b) Vide Evag. l. 3. c. 17.22. Gelasius Papa Lepist. ad orient. Episc. Sed solvit illum aucto­ritate suâ prius Aca­cius, & sic suscepit. subscribed to the Orthodox Faith, and that he had been absolv'd by Acacius; But because it was done by Acacius, and not by the Pope, they look'd upon that Fact as Derogatory to the See of Rome; and therefore to maintain their own Grandeur, they declar'd the Absolution of Mongus Inva­lid, and that consequently he was still to be accounted a Heretick. Then Acacius was Excommunicated by Pope Felix III. as one that Communicated with a Heretick, so in shew: but the true Reason was, because he endea­voured to advance the See of Constantinople above that of Rome. This Excommu­nication was the Reason, why some later Writers, even amongst the Greeks, are wont to speak of Acacius as of one enclin'd to the Eutychians; so besides a great many others, Theophanes the Chronographer, and the Patriarch Photius in a Treatise (c) De Episcopis & Metropolitis, &c. [...]. not yet Publish'd. Though Acacius during all his Life-time, and for many years after, was highly honour'd by the Orthodox at Constan­tinople, and by the generality of the Eastern Church, as a great and truly Orthodox Patriarch, and no notice at all was taken of the Pope's Excommunication; yet at last, after the Expiration of 37 years, by the importunity of Pope Hormisdas, that so the two Churches, the Eastern and the Western might be Reconcil'd, (d)In the beginning of the Empe­rour Iustin. Photius in the place above quoted, says [...] for [...]. his Name was struck out of the Dipty [...]hs. Then the Greeks began to imitate the Latins, and to speak ill of him whom be­fore they had deservedly Honour'd. It is certain, in a word, that whatever Mon­gus in reality was in the life time of Acaci­us, yet outwardly he seem'd to be Ortho­dox. If he was in reality a Heretick, that Acacius knew not, and according to (e) Defens. 3. capit. l. 7. c. 3. Facundus, Aliud est, si quisque simpliciter in Haeretico dolos suos occuliente fallatur, ut eum putet [Page 64] Orthodoxum: Et aliud, si ipsammet ejus Haeresim agnitam sectetur atque defendat. Non debet crimini deputari simplicium non intellecta versutia malignorum.

2. So did likewise Fravites the Successor of Acacius. As he took no notice of the Pope's Excommunication of Acacius, so as soon as he was made Patri­arch, be sent away his (a) Evag. l. 3. c. 23. Communicatory Letters to Mongus.

3. So did likewise Martyrius, the (b) Cyrilla [...] Seyth [...]pol. V [...]tâ S. Eu­thymii p. 86. & V. S. Sabae p. 244, 245. Orthodox Patriarch of Ierusalem, who flou­rished in the time of Acacius. With Mon­gus (says (c) L. 3. c. 16. [...]. Evagrius) Communicated A­cacius the Patriarch of Constantinople and Martyrius the Patriarch of Jerusalem sent him his Synodical Letters.

4. So did in a word all the Greek or Eastern Catholicks, as many as thought him no Heretick, not taking any notice at all of his being put into the place of another Deposed without any Synod. This appears from the (d)Epist. ad Orient. Episcopos. Tane istud nemo discutiebat, synodum nemo pos­cebat, passim omnia li [...]ite fieri à quibus­cun (que) videbantur; nullum discrimen rerum, nulla examinatio postulabatur ecclesiae, sed prout de uno quoque venisset in mentem, de suis urbibus Catholic [...]s pellebatur Epi­scopus, non solìam Metropolitanus, sed eti­am tertiae (sc. Antiachenae) & secundae sedis Antistes. In his nulla rerum vesti­gatio quaerebatur, nulla facienda concilia jactabantur, &c. Certe quae sedes Aposto­lica decreverat, Orientalibus Episco­pis non innotuisse jactatur—Vbi tamen non solum reus tenetur Acacius, sed om­nes Pontifices Orientales, qui pari modo in haec cecidere contagia, merit [...] (que) simili damnatione tenentur obstricti, &c. Epistles of Pope Gelasius 1. Omnes Pontifices Orientales: So Gelasius says expresly; who, because it was done without the con­sent of the Popes his Predecessors, and because he himself accounted Mongus a Heretick, is very angry with 'em for it. Neither were they compell'd to it by the Patriarch Acacius, as Theophanes, who liv'd at that time when Acacius was accounted a Heretick, would needs persuade us. For 'tis plain from Pope Gelasius ad Episcopos Orientales, that they all did it readily, and that no one pretended that he had been compell'd to it.

Secondly, I observe, That among all those who refus'd to Communicate with Mongus, there is no one said to have done so on the account of his be­ing Constituted in the place of one Vnsynodically Deposed, that their only Reason was, because they accounted him a Heretick. So Theophanes supposes of those Eastern Bishops and others, who he says were compell'd by Acacius to re­ceive Mongus into Communion.

1. It is plain from the Epistle of the Bishops of Dardania to Pope Gelasius, That that was their only Reason. They only allege he was a Heretick, say nothing of the vnsynodical Deprivation of his Predecessor.

2. The same is intimated by Evagriut concerning Calendion the Patriarch of An­tioch. In his Letters, says he, to the Emperor Zeno, and Acacius, he call'd Peter (Mongus) an Adulterer, (a) [...]. l. 3. c. 16. saying, That being at Alexandria he Anathematiz'd the Coun­cil of Chalcedon.

[Page 65]3. Euphemius (says the same (a) [...] l. 3. c. 23. Author) being made Patriarch of Constantinople in the room of Fravitas deceased, receiv'd the Synodical Epistle which Mongus had written to Fravitas, and when he found that he Anathematiz'd the Council of Chalcedon, (so he ventur'd to do as soon as Acacius was Dead, which he dar'd not do before, at least not publickly) he was very much troubled and broke off from his Communion. Hence it plainly appears that before that time he freely Communicated with him, and that now he broke off upon only the account of Heresie; yet how Orthodox a Person he was, and how stout and couragious a Bishop, is very Notorious. That sufficiently appears from his Behaviour to Anastasius. When being a great Person in the Court of the Em­peror Zeno, Anastasius had discover'd his Inclination to Eutychianism, and did something prejudicial to the Cause of the Ortho­dox, Euphemius the Patriarch (b) Theoph. Chron. p. 115. thrust him out of the Church, and threaten'd him, that if he did not desist from his Practices, he would shave his Head for him, and de­liver him up to the Mockeries of the Rabble. When the same Anastasius was to be Crown'd Emperor in the room of Zeno, he (c) Evag. l. 3. c. 32. Theodorus Lector l. 2. p. 558. refus'd to give his consent till he had forced him to give him an Assurance under his Hand, That he never would innovate in Matters of Religion. And he afterwards so stoutly opposed him, as to suffer Expulsion and Banishment.

4. As it appears from (d)L. 3. c. 13. [...]. Evagrius and others, That the Proterians, or the Orthodox of Aegypt, acknow­leged Mongus for their Bishop; so we are told by (c) Brev. c. 18. Liberatus Diaconus, that when it was Reported that he had Anathematiz'd the Council of Chalce­don, they that believ'd he had done so separated from him. Et his ita gestis, abscesserunt quidam à Petri Communione, & Romam nuntiaverunt Papae Romae.

5. When Pope Simplicias had receiv'd a Letter from the Emperor concern­ing his design to Depose Talaias, he was so far well enough satisfied, and no­thing displeas'd him, till Reading further in the Letter he found that a Here­tick, i. e. one whom he accounted a Heretick, was design'd for his Successor. This he owns in his Letter to Acacius. (f)Epist. 17. Cum ecce secundum Consuetudinem mihi talia dispenenti Tranquillissimi Principis scripta sunt reddita, quibus memoratum tanquam perjurii reum, quod Fraterni­tati quoque tuae non esse diceretur incognitum, Sacerdotio perhiberet indignum. Illico retraxi pedem, & meam retocavi super ejus Confirmatione sententiam, ne quid contra tantum ac tale Testimonium praeproperè fecisse judicarer. Sed illud me non medio­criter fecit attonitum, quod insdem literis suis Petrum, qui Haereticorum socius dudum extitisse probetur & Princeps, quod Conscientiam dilectionis tuae mem [...]nimus non latere, instructionesque ipsiss, quibus faerit consutatus, nosse considimus, quemque etiam dubium non sit adhuc extra Communionem durare Catholicam, saepéque nos de eodem ex illâ urbe pellendo scripsisse sit certum, ad Praefatae Ecclesiae regimen existimet provehendum, &c. When, says he, according to Custom I was about to send to John my Confirmatory Let­ters, I receiv'd a Letter from the Emperor, in which he declar'd him unworthy of the Dignity, as being guilty of Perjury. I forthwith slept, and recall'd my Sentence of Confirmation, least I should be judg'd to have acted rashly [Page 66] in opposition to so great a Testimony. But this extreamly astonish'd me, that in the same Letter he mentions that he thought fit to promote Peter in his room, one who was ere while a Ringleader of the Hereticks, and is still to be presum'd to be out of the Communion of the Church. He adds, That if Peter (Mongus) did [...] to return to the Church, he could not be made a Bishop till by Penance, according to the Rules of the Church, he had made ample Satisfaction; That it was not safe for the Church that he should be promoted to that Bishoprick, least by making a shew of being a Convert he should propagate his Heresie. He begs Acacius to do his utmost endeavour with the Emperor, that Mongus might not be made Bishop; (a) Opportunitatibus ergo repertis, Clementissimi Princi­pis voluntatem incessabiliter pro side Catholicâ supplicando & ab his sedulo revocare quae no­civa sunt Dogmati Christiano, &c. to intercede with him incessantly for the Catholick Faith, that what was done in prejudice to it might be Re­vok'd. Concerning the Unlawfulness of a Bishops succeeding another before that other was Synodi­cally Deposed, not a word. The same Pope in another Epistle to Acacius, which in order follows the former, but was written before it, and before these times just after the Emperor Zeno was restor'd upon the Expulsion of Basiliscus, when the Here­tick Timotheus Aelurus was made Bishop of Alexandria in the room of Timotheus Salofaciolus the Orthodox Patriarch, whom Basiliscus had Deposed; I say, in that Epistle he desires Acacius to take care to intercede with the Emperor that the Heretical Bishops might be turn'd out and Banish'd, and that either the ejected Orthodox Bishops might be Restored, or at least new Orthodox Bishops be Created. Quatenus his submotis atque in solitudinis perpetua relegatione damnatis, Antistites Cathelici deceptis vel reddantur Ecclesiis vel creentur. Whether old ones or new ones, was to him altogether indifferent; he only desired they should be Orthodox. So (as is above observ'd in the forgoing Section) he highly extolls Acacius's Constancy in forbidding Aelurus to enter into any of his Churches, because he was a Heretick and a Murderer; takes no notice at all of his being put into the room of Salofaciolus Vnsynodically Deposed.

6. Pope Felix III. in his two first Pathetical Epistles which he wrote in his own Name, and the Name of a Synod of Rome, to Acacius and the Emperor, concerning the promotion of Mongus, takes no notice at all of Talaias's being Deposed without a Synod: He only complains that Mongus was a Heretick. So likewise in his sixth Epistle to Acacius, wherein he Excommunicates him, and declares him Deposed; the great Reason assign'd, is, because he conti­nu'd to Communicate with the Heretick Mongus. And though there are other pretended Crimes charg'd upon him, yet concerning any Crime committed by him in Communicating with a Person put into the place of another Vnsy­nodically Deposed, there is nothing alleged.

We may gather lastly from Evagrius, That Talaias himself did not think it Unlawful for the People and Clergy of Aegypt to accept of another Patriarch, if that other had been likewise Orthodox. He flees, (b) L. 3. c. 15. says Evagrius, to Rome, and raises there very great Stirs, affirming (not that another could not be put into his place, because he was not Deposed by a Synod, but) that it was for his defending the Council of Chalcedon that he was Deposed, and that he that was Constituted his Successor was an Enemy to the Doctrine of that Council. By these Allega­tions, Simplicius Pope of Rome was so far moved, as to write to the Emperor concern­ing him. And the Emperor return'd him this Answer, That 'twas only for Perjury that he had been Deposed, not on any other account.

[Page 67]7. In the year 483. Calendion the Orthodox Pa­triarch of Antioch was Deposed (a) Evag. l. 3. c. 16. Liberatus Diac. c. 4.18. by the Em­peror Zeno, as suspected to have conspired against him with the Rebels Illus and Leontius. That he was Deposed without any Synod, is manifest from the express Testimony of (b)Epist. ad Orient. Episcopos. Sed miramur, cur eos non pudeat in istorum damnatione de Synodo non fact [...] causari, cum sciant tot tantosque Pon­tifices (Calendionem, Talaiam, &c.) nullâ Synodo fuisse depulsos, &c. So expresly in several other Places. See the place above quoted, where by tertiae Sedis Antistes is meant Calendion of Antioch. Pope Gelasius I.

Though Deposed in this manner, yet his Successor Petrus Gnapheus, a notori­ous Heretick, was rejected by none of the Orthodox upon any other account, but because he was a Heretick.

1. Pope Felix III. in his two Epistles to Petrus Gnapheus, (in the latter of which he declares him Deposed) and in another, which he writes to the Em­peror to desire that he might be Ejected, takes no notice at all of Calendion, no notice at all of his being Vnsynodically Deposed; the only thing he objects against Gnapheus, is, his being a Heretick. For this, and for this alone, he Deposes him; and he plainly intimates, that if he would forsake his Heresie, there was nothing else to be objected a­gainst him. He tells the Emperor, That (c) [...], &c. the Church had Deposed him because he was a He­retick. and to him himself, (d)Epist. 3. ad fi [...]em. [...]. Forsake (says he) I beseech thee this Error; Thou art fallen, do not lie as thou art; Thou hast Sin'd, do not continue to do so; The Holy Church of God expects thee, she desires to embrace thee a Penitent, and a Convert to her Faith; She cries out to thee by us, Come to me all you that Labour, &c. God wills not, most Honour'd Brother, the Death of a Sinner, but that he should be Converted and Live—. These Things, I, together with a Synod, have written to thee, Conjuring thee by God and the Holy Angels, that thou Preach these Things; and agree with us in the True Faith; That so our Faith may remain Vnadulterated to the Glory of God. The same is to be said of all those Bi­shops whose Epistles to Gnapheus are ex­tant in the 4th. Tome of the Councils; not one takes notice of his being Invalidly Constituted in the room of Calendion. Heresie is the only Thing they object, that the only Thing they exhort him to forsake.

[Page 68]2. Quintianus Asculanus, (a) [...]; — (ad finem) [...]. Thou proceedest, says he, in thy Heretical Doctrines not withstand­ing the Admonitions of many Bishops, and parti­cularly Pope Felix, who have exhorted thee to forsake 'em, and to preach the Orthodox Faith. — Who can bear with thee, whilst thou thus perver­test the Gospel of Christ? — Let thy Liturgy be as that of the Orthodox is (without the addi­tion of that Clause, who wast Crucified for us) and that punishment, which is intended for thee, shall be slopt. If thou dost not do so, there will be sent thee from Pope Felix a Deprivation.

3. Iustinus Siculus. (b) [...], &c. Cease, says he, from this Wickedness, and then thou wilt not be the cause of the Ruin of those that are more igno­rant, least our Pope Felix should according to the Canons pass Sentence upon thee. — Receive my Admonition as the Admonition of a Brother. Extinguish the Pride of Hereticks, and become a Pastor to thy Sheep, not a Wolf, &c.

4. Acacius Patriarch of Constantinople. (c) [...] Walk, says he, and lead thy Flock in the high way, in which the Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon walk'd, that thou may'st be a true High-Priest of God.

5. To the same purpose, Antheon Bi­shop of Arsinoe, and Faustus of Apollonius. (d) [...], &c. I have heard, beloved, (says the latter) from many Bishops, That thou turn'st away from the Orthodox Faith, and in all place, they talk of it; I therefore thought it necessary to enquire of thee thy self, whether it be really so, &c.

6. Pamphilus Bishop of Abydus. (e) [...] This Reprehension I send thee, that returning to the true Faith, thou may'st enjoy the Dignity of thy Throne; But if thou dost not return to the Orthodox Faith, I will Excommunicate thee.

[Page 69]7. Ascelepiades Bishop of Trallium. (f) [...]. The whole World is offended at thy addition to the Trishagium; and the Pastors of the Church are deservedly excited to pronounce an Anathema against thee. Give us, I beseech thee, some little Signification of thy being Orthodox, &c.

The only Person that takes any notice of his being irregularly Constituted, is, Flaccianus Rhodopensis; and of him 'tis uncertain, whether, when he says, That Gna­pheus was irregularly Constituted, he had any respect to the Deprivation of Calendion. For Gnapheus had been formerly deposed from the See of Antioch, as a Heretick; and therefore since he had never been absolv'd by the Church, he might well be said, even upon that account, to have been irregularly promoted: And to * At enim cribratus es Canonicè à Prae­sulibus nostris, id est, à Principe Apostolo­rum Petro, cui Dominus ait: Quodcunque ligaveris super terram, erit ligatum & in [...]lo. At nec hoc meruisti, ut per dignam poenitentiam relaxeris, in temetipsum sta­tuens, ut perseveres in hac Danmatione: Sed in hac vitâ spem habes tantummodo in principibus, ut redeas ubi dignè ejectus es à Sanctâ sede; ideóque perfectius es miserabilior omnibus hominibus, tanquam minimè de­siderium habens ad Deum vivum & ejus regnum Coelorum: veruntamen noli frustra pulvere dealbari, quia irregulariter Sacerdotii principatum arripuisti: neque infleris adversus nos pie rectéque praedicantes. this Flaccianus seems to allude. What­ever was his meaning, he only barely mentions it, does not offer it as a Reason, why the Orthodox did not, or ought not, to Communicate with him. He insists, like the rest, upon only his being a Heretick.

I am not ignorant that these Epistles of Pope Felix, Quintianus, Iustinus, Aca­cius, Antheon, Faustus, Pamphilus, and Asclepiades to Petrus Gnapheus, are lookt upon by

some Learned Men not to be Genuine. But I likewise know that that Opinion is by (h)D. Cave Hist. Liter. in Iustino Siculo. others opposed. However it be: This at least is appa­rent, that he or they, who wrote 'em, (and 'tis certain that they are very an­cient) did not doubt of the lawfulness of Communicating with a Bishop, who was put into the place of another unjustly Deposed by the Lay-Power, provided he were not a Heretick; or, if he were, would leave his Heresie and come over to the Orthodox Faith. And here I must observe, that the Epistle last quoted, viz. That of Flaccianus, is Con­demn'd as Spurious, by even (i)Dr. Cave loco cit. those who will not yield that the rest should be thought so.

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 Terrours 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.

IN the year (a)In the 21st year of Anastasius, says Theophanes, and out of him Cedrenus. 511, Macedontus the Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople was Deposed by the bare Authority of the Heretical Emperor Anastasius, and that because he was Orthodox, and refused to Condemn the Council of Chalcedon. Though Macedonius was so unjustly Deposed, yet Timo­theus, whom the Emperor had constituted in his place, was receiv'd and ac­knowleged as true Bishop of Constantinople by all those that accounted him Orthodox. This is one of the Examples produced by the Author of the Baroc­cian Treatise.

Evagrius says, That the Patriarch Macedonius (b) [...], l. 3. c. 32. went away privately from the City of Constantinople by the perswasions of Celer the Captain of the Emperors Guards; By which he means that the Captain of the Guards being commanded by the Emperor to carry him away into Banishment, persuaded him to go away with him peaceably and privately for the avoiding of a Tumult. That the Pa­triarch did not resign, but was forced to go away, and lookt upon himself still as the Rightful Patriarch, is appa­rent from the express Testimony of seve­ral Authors, and Evagrius himself in ano­ther place affirms, That he was (c)C. 44. [...]. e­jected. The Emperor, says (d)Hist. Eccl. l. 2. p. 565. [...], &c, Theodorus Lector, supposing that Macedonius, if he should have been judg'd, would, as innocent, have been defended by the People, sent him away by force to Chalcedon by Night, and commanded him to be carried from thence to Eucha [...]a; and the [Page 71] next day he made one Timotheus Patriarch in his stead. Anastasius the Emperor (says (a)Chron. Anastasius Imperator Ma­cedonium Constantinopolitum Episcopum cum quibusdam Clericis nolentem Synodi Chal­ced. Decreta damnare, ab Ecclesiâ rapit, & in exilium mitti, atque pro eo Timothe­um Presb. Episcopum facit. Victor Tununensis) deposed Macedonius the Bishop of Constantinople by Violence, and sent him away into Banishment, because he refused to Condemn the Council of Chalcedon, and in his stead he made the Presbyter Timotheus Bi­shop. (b)Chronogr. p. 133. [...]. &c. Theophanes, the Emperor com­manded Celer to fetch Macedonius out of his Palace by force, who cried out, That he was ready to justifie himself, not only before the Emperor, but even before all the People in the Theatre— Thus he commanded him to be led away forcibly by Night, first to Chalcedon, and thence to Eu­chaita, not daring to bring him to a Trial (c) [...]. for fear of the People, and the next day be made one Timotheus Bishop. To these may be added, (d)Chron. Marcellinus Comes, (e)V. S. Sabae, c. 50. Cyrillus Scythopolitanus, (f)Brev. c. 19. Liberatus Diaconus, (g)Syn. 110. Libellus Synodicus, (h)Annal. Zonaras, (i)Chron. p. 360. Cedrenus, (k)L. 16. c. 26. Nicephorus Callisti. After Macedonius was Banish'd, and Timotheus Ordain'd Pa­triarch in his room, the Emperor to persuade the World that it was not for nothing, but for very great Crimes, that he was Banish'd, order'd a mock Trial: Accordingly he was tried when absent, Accused, Judged, Con­demn'd, by the very same Persons. His Mock-Condemnation, or Depriva­tion, being sent him, he rejected it as null and void in it self, because his Judges were Hereticks. Of this (l)Chron. p. 133, 134. [...], &c. Perpendens [...]orro Anastasius Ma­cedonium, indictà causà, nullàve depositionis in eum latâ sententiâ in exilium ejectum, misso Magistro (Celere) deportari cum jussit (so it ought to be reader'd, not diem ei dixit) ultra Claud [...]polim Honori­adis Provinciae. Tidem vero cum essent & judices & testes & accusatores (so it ought to be render'd) ejectum jam ante judicium & absentem muneris abrogatione damnant, & per E­piscopos & Presbyterum Cyzicenum depositionis sententiam mittunt. Quos ubi conspexit Mace­donius, etiam ante sermonis exordiam interrogat, Num Chalcedonensem Synodum admittant? Respondentibus illis, Tu quis es? Dixit ipse. Sabbatiani aut Macedoniani (Haeretici) si [...]hi depositionis deferrent sententiam, me admittere oporteret? Et ita re infectâ reversi sunt, [...]se vero Euchaïtam reversus est. To the same purpose Nicephorus Call. l. 16. c.26. Theophanes has given us a particular Account, I suppose out of the Ecclesiastical History of Theodorus Lector; for him he quotes by Name (m)P. 139. a little after.

That Timotheus, though the Deprivation of Macedonius was accounted by all the Orthodox Party to be absolutely Null, and though he was ordain'd Pa­triarch even before that Mock-Deprivation, was however acknowledged by all those of the Orthodox Party that accounted him Orthodox, is apparent from many Authorities. If he was rejected, it was only by those who believ'd him to be, what really he was, a Heretick. I observe in the first place, that amongst all the Authors who mention the Deprivation of Macedonius, there is [Page 72] not so much as one that either says ex­presly, or gives any hint, that any one separated from Timotheus upon that ac­count. They observe indeed, that many of the Followers of Macedonius were at the same time Persecuted, and Banish'd. So (a)P. 133. [...]. Cedrenus has almost the same words. Theophanes, Cedrenus, and (b)L. 16. c. 26. [...]. Nice­phorus Callisti. But then at the same time they intimate, that it was for the same Reason that Macedonius himself was Ba­nish'd; viz. Because they were great Sticklers for the Orthodox Faith; and because for the sake of the Orthodox Faith they still adher'd to him. In the (c) Ap. Acta Conc. sub Mennâ Act. v. p. 164. Secundum Capitulum in Li­bellis continebatur, ut qui propter causam [...], &c. prae­dictorum Patrum (Euphemii dicimus & Macedonii) relegati fuerunt & fugati, reversi restituantur propriis gradibus. Quoniam igitur justa petitio est, ut primae consequens, deliberavimus ut praedicti ad­juventur, &c. To the same purpose the Petitio Monachorum ad Synodum, ibid. p. 172. Relatio, or Libellus Petitionis, which was presented to Iohn the Successor of Timotheus by the Synod of Constantinople, after the Death of the Emperor Anasta­sius, concerning the Condemnation of the Heretick Severus, and the restoring of the Names of Euphemius and Macedonius to the Sacred Diptychs; It is likewise de­sired, that they that had been Banish'd, or forced to flee away upon the account of Euphe­mius and Macedonius, might be recall'd and restored to their respective Places. These things had been demanded by the People in their publick Acclamations; and that the aforesaid Persons were banish'd and forced to flee away for their zealous defence of the Catholick Faith, the same People testifie by their Acclamations just after the aforesaid Peti­tion was delivered: Their words there are (d) [...]. Ibid. p. 181. Let those that are in banishment for the Faith be recall'd and restored to the Church.

Secondly, Theophanes says of the Illustrious and Religious Lady Iuliana, That she was (e) [...], &c. so great a Defender of the Council of Chalcedon, that the Emperour could not possibly perswade her with all his Art to communicate with Timotheus, neither could Timotheus himself perswade her, though he often endeavour'd to do it. The reason, why she would not communicate with Timotheus, was, as may be ga­ther'd from these words of Theophanes, not because Macedonius was unjustly de­posed, but because she accounted Timotheus an Enemy to the Council of Chal­cedon.

Thirdly, 'Tis observ'd by the same Author, That though some Orthodox Bishops refused to communicate with Timotheus (because they thought him a Heretick) yet others, and those two not the most timorous, receiv'd him into Communion, though they absolutely refused to subscribe to Macedonius's [Page 73] Deprivation, and Condemn'd it as Unjust and Uncanonical. (a) [...]. Timotheus, says he, sent his Synodical Spistles, and a Copy of Mace­donius' s Deprivation, to the several Bishops to be subscrib'd. Those that were more stout refused to subscribe to either; they that were timorous subscribed through fear of the Emperor to both. Others kept the midway, and subscribed to the former, but refused to subscribe to the latter; which (in effect) was the same thing, though to them they seem'd to be different. By these last Words is meant, That they that subscribed to Timotheus's Synodical Epistle, though they did not them­selves believe him to be a Heretick, yet because he really was so, did by con­sequence, and by accident, as much advance the Cause of the Hereticks, as if they had likewise approv'd of Macedonius's Deprivation. Amongst those Bishops who accepted of Timotheus's Synodical Epistle, and by doing so receiv'd him into Communion, and own'd him as Bishop of Constantinople, two were the Famous Flavianus and Elias, the Patriarchs of Antioch and Ierusalem. This is in express Terms attested by Cyrillus Scythopolitanus, a very good Author in these Matters, as one of our Adversaries, the Learned Vindicator acknowleges; tho' (b)A farther Account of the Baroc­cian MS. another (who either does not know how to distinguish a good Author from a bad one, or at least for a Cause, can Vilifie any good Author) is pleas'd to affirm, That Cyril's Legend is too weak an Authority to perswade any Man that Elias (and Flavianus) accepted of Timotheus' [...] Synodical Epistle. We will leave our Author to inform himself a little better of the Character of Writers, and will give you here the words of Cyrillus. The (c)Vitâ S. Sabae, c. 50. [...]. Emperor (says he) having driven Macedonius out of his See, placed Timotheus in his room, and requir'd Flavianus and Elias to unite themselves to him in Communion. And they indeed assented to his Synodical Letters, but they would not do so to the Acts of Macedoni­us' s Deprivation. Vpon which account the Emperor was extreamly enraged against them both, and a great storm hung over both Churches. 'Tis observ'd by the Author of the Baroccian Treatise, That the great Elias, Bishop of Jerusalem, embraced the Communi­on of three Patriarchs of Constantinople, all alive together, viz. Euphemius, Mace­donius, and Timotheus, being troubled indeed at the Ejectment of him in Possession, but receiving the Successor also, because of his Orthodox Faith. That Timotheus, Flavianus, and Elias, were Fellow-Communicants, is intima­ted likewise by (d)Brev. c. 18. Post quem ordinatus est Alexandrie Ioannes Machiota (Niciola aut Nicaeota) qui etiam ipse suos priores (Eutychianos) secutus est, suscipiens quidem uniti­vum Zenonis Edictum, non autem Chalcedonense Concilium & Epistolam Papae Leonis, tan­quam non communicaret Flaviano Antiocheno, & Eliae Hierofolymorum Episcopis, & Timotheo Constantinopolitano. Dicebat enim imperfectè Edictum se habere, nec ad unitatem sufficere, quod non in Anathemate Synodi fuisset factum. Deinde cum ei Imp. Anastasius scripsisset, ut uni­vetur Constantinopolitano Episcopo: Haec rescripsit, Quia (i. e. quod) non sufficeret ei ad per­fectain unitatem, eo quod non anathematizaret Synodum. Liberatus Diaconus.

[Page 74]'Tis acknowleged by the Learned Vindicator; who, because their Opinion and Practice was so directly contrary to his, is resolv'd to be revenged on 'em. They were Men, says he, of no Principles, turn'd frequently Apostates to the Eutychian Hereticks, very frequently and easily-varied from the Principles which they themselves profess'd and own'd for Principles. We see, says he, that they corresponded with so Notorious a Heretick as Timotheus, (which is more than ever our Authors own Principles would have allow'd 'em) rather than hazard their Places. Why should we then wonder if they had corresponded with Schismaticks, even such as themselves took for such? Much more of the same Nature he very Vnworthily throws at 'em. To all which I Answer,

1. That when they Subscribed to the Synodical Letters of Timotheus, at the same time they absolutely refused to Subscribe to the Deprivation of Macedonius, because they thought it Unlawful; and though, as Cyrillus tells us, the Em­peror was extreamly enraged against 'em, because they refused to Subscribe to the latter, and immediately resolv'd to Depose 'em, yet they never could be prevail'd with to do it. They still continued to Communicate with Timo­theus, but to their dying day did never Subscribe to the Deprivation of Macedo­nius. From hence it is manifest, that they receiv'd Timotheus into Communion, not because they dar'd not hazard their Places, but because they thought they might Lawfully do it.

2. It is utterly untrue that they knew Timotheus to be a Heretick. Had our Author judged Candidly as he ought to have done, he would easily have judged of himself, that the Synodical Letters, which Timotheus sent to Flavia­nus and Elias, contained in 'em nothing Heretical, since such Men as they re­ceiv'd 'em. And had he look'd nicely into the Histories and Concerns of those Times, he would have found, that Timotheus did not presently ap­pear to be a Heretick. They that knew him very well, or were nicely in­form'd concerning him, did believe that he was so, and accordingly with­drew from his Communion: But certain it is, that to the Catholicks who did not well know him he pretended to be one of their Party. It is cer­tain that after he was made Patriarch, he (a) [...] (Prae­fectum Monasterii Studitarum) [...]. Theodorus Lector l. 2. P. 563. denounced an Anathema against all those that were either averse to, or Anathematiz'd the Council of Chalcedon. This an antient and an authentick Historian expresly affirms. So far indeed was he from denouncing an Anathema against the Council of Chal­cedon in his Synodical Letters, that (b)See his Words above-cited. Liberatus Diaconus expresly asserts, that up­on that very account, because he did not, the Eutychian Patriarch of Alexandria re­fus'd to Communicate with him. The same Author plainly intimates, That Timo­theus (as well as Flavianus and Elias) Subscribed in his Synodical Letters to the Council of Chalcedon, and the Epistle of Pope Leo. Ioannes Nicaeotes, (says he) the Patriarch of Alexandria pursu'd the steps of his (Eutychian) Predecessors, receiving indeed the uniting Edict of Zeno, Non autem Chalcedonense Concilium & Epistolam Papae Leonis, tanquam non communicaret Flaviano Antiocheno, & Eliae Hierosolymorum Episcopis, & Timotheo Constantinopolitano. Another Au­thority is that of the Historian Evagrius, who (c)L. 4. c. 4. [...]. affirms, That the Synodical Epi­stles [Page 75] of Severus, who succeeded Flavianus in the See of Antioch, about a year or two after Timotheus was made Patriarch of Constantinople, were (because they Anathematiz'd the Council of Chalcedon) receiv'd by none of the then Patri­archs, besides the Patriarchs of Alexandria. Therefore, according to the Testi­mony of Evagrius, the Synodical Epistles of the Eutychian Severus, were rejected by Timotheus. If Evagrius was mistaken, at least from what he says it is manifest, That Timotheus was believ'd by many to be Orthodox. To these I add the express Testimony of Nicephorus Callisti. (d)L. 16. c. 32. [...]. Elias, says he, and Flavianus receiv'd Timotheus into Communion, as seeming to be Orthodox. But the Banishment of Macedonius they did not approve off as being by Violence, and against the Laws of the Church.

3. Though the Patriarch Flavianus was by the Persecutions of his Enemies so far prevail'd upon, as to subscribe to the Condemnation of Theodoret, Ibas, &c. yet 'tis certain from the (d)Ap. Evag. l. 3. c. 31. Epistle of the Monks of Palaestine to Alciso, that he Condemn'd 'em upon Supposition that they were Nestorians. And though by repeated Persecutions he was further prevail'd upon to Subscribe against the Council of Chalcedon; yet from the same Authentick Monument it is manifest, that he subscribed a­gainst the Doctrine of it only upon this Supposition, That it was (as his Po­tent Enemies contended) Nestorian: For it's plain, that at the very same time he own'd that Council as to its Condemning Eutyches. 'Twas this Subscripti­on of his that occasion'd all those Reports which we find in some Authors, particularly in Theophanes the Chronographer, concerning his Anathematizing the Coun­cil of Chalcedon. That all those Reports are very great Mistakes, and that he never could be prevail'd upon (though his Persecutions were intolerable, though by all manner of Afflictions his Enemies endeavoured to force him) to Anathematize that Council, or to Subscribe to the Eutychian Heresie, and that at last, because he could not be prevail'd upon, he lost his Bishoprick, is very apparent from the aforesaid (e) Loc. Cit. See likewise c. 32. Epistle. They many ways afflicted him, as (f)V. Sabae, p. 308. [...] By [...], he does not mean, that they effectually compell'd him to Anathematize the Council, but only that they endeavoured it. So the word [...] is us'd a little after, P. 310. So likewise by Theophanes, Chron. p. 130. twice. And so these words of Cyrillus were understood by the antient Latin Translator of the Second Council of Nice, Act 1. where they are quoted. He renders it thus Cogentes & obinto collo huc trabentes, ut acta Concilii Chalced Anathemate prosequeretur: quo nolente, Episcopatu suo privatus in exilium quoque damnatus est. Cyrillus Scythopelitanus says, and as it were Strangled him to make him comply; yet even at this time he Communicated still with Timotheus. How great an Honour the Orthodox had for him may be gather'd from the publick (g)Subjoin'd to the Epistle of the Synod of Tyre to the Synod of Constantinople, extant in the Acts of the Council sub Mennâ, Act. 5. p. 206. [...]. Acclamations of the Orthodox Party of Tyre, just after the [Page 76] Death of the Emperor Anastasius. They demand that his Name, which had been struck out by the Hereticks, should be again restor'd to the Diptychs of the Church, and are very zealous to have his Body brought to their City, that there it might be disposed of after the most honourable manner. And that this might be done [...]s the Re­quest of the Synod of Tyre to the Synod of Constantinople. (a)Ibid. p. 202. [...], &c. Similem deprecationem super his osserimus, ut — accipiamus honorificè Corpus Spiritualis Patris nostri Flaviani Patr. Antiocheni, & restituatur catalogo San­ctorum Patrum qui in Apostolicâ sede ante defuncti sunt; & inseratur nomen ipsius ve­nerabile sacris tabulis. Iustum enim est oum, qui pro Christo Deo-nostro, & ejus recta fide fatigatus est, & qui sustinuit aerumnosam sententiam eorum, qui eum calumniabantur ( [...], &c.) in Communionem veniret eorum, &c. It is just (say they) that his venerable Name should be inserted in the Sacred Diptychs, who suffer'd so much for Christ our God, and for the true Faith, &c. In a word, so great an Honour has the Church had all along for him, that to this very day he is Worship'd as a (b) Flaviani Secundi Episcopi Antiocheni, & Eliae Episcopi Hierosolymorum, qui pro Sy­nodo-Chalced, ab Anastasio Imp. in exilium acti, victores migrarunt ad Dominum. Marty­rolog. Rom. Julii 4. In Moschus's Pratum Spirituale, c. 26. 'tis said (though untruly, yet it shews how great an Opinion that Age had of him) That God reveal'd to him, as well as to Elias, the time of his own, and likewise of the Emperors Death. Confessor and a Saint. By Marcellinus Comes (c) Chron. ad Consul. Pauli & Musciani., who was living at that time, he is call'd ex­presly a Confessor. By (d)L. 16. c. 27. [...]. Nicephorus Callisti he is styl'd a very great Man.

4. As for the Patriarch Elias, he likewise is honoured by the Church as a Saint and a Confessor, though till he was Deposed from his See he still continu'd to Communicate with Timotheus. As Flavianus was Deposed for his Constancy at Antioch, so was Elias a little after at Ierusalem. He is call'd by (e)Vitâ S. Sabae, c. 34. [...]. Cyrillus of Scythopolis, Elias who was truly a High Priest of God: By the Author of the (f)Syn. III. [...]. Synodi­con, Elias the Preacher of God: By the Au­thor of the Baroccian Treatise, The Great, the Blessed Elias: By Nicephorus Callisti (g) [...]., The most Celebrated Elias. And so Holy a Man was he esteem'd, That (h)Loc. Cit. c. 60. Cyrillus says, That after his Ejectment, the time of his own, and likewise the Emperor Anastasius's Death, was Reveal'd by God to him. Neither was he a young Man at that time when he was Deposed, and when he Communicated with Timotheus, but a Man of a very great Age, of no less than (i) Cyrillus tells us, c. 60. that he was Eighty eight years old when he Died, and that he Died Ten days after the Emperor Anastasius, i. e. Anno 518. Eighty One years, when first he began to Communicate with him, and of Consequence fully instructed in the Doctrine and Pra­ctice of the Catholick Church.

[Page 77]What we Read in (a) L. 2. p. 501. Theophanes, who writ out of Theodorus, says the quite contrary to Theodorus, p. 130. That Elias then acknowleged the Council of Chalcedon: But I think with Valesius, That Theophanes ought to be Corrected from Theodorus, though Goar thinks the contrary, that Theophanes's is the true Reading, and that Theodorus ought to be Corrected out of him. Theodorus Lector concerning Elias, that being Commanded by the Emperor to call a Synod, and Condemn the Council of Chalcedon, he did not indeed call a Synod, but however he himself wrote a Letter to the Em­peror, in which he Anathematiz'd Nestorius and Eutyches, Diodorus and Theodorus, and the Council of Chalcedon. This I say is a Notorious Error. It is very well observ'd by Baronius, That Theodorus was led into this Mistake by a Spurious Letter which the Hereticks had feign'd in Elias's Name. Let us hear the Monks of Palaestine in their Epistle to Alciso, which was written a little after whilst Elias himself was yet living. The (b)Ap. Evag. l. 3. c. 31. [...], &c. Hereticks, say they, require the Bishop of Jerusalem to give 'em an account of his Faith in Writing. He accordingly sends an account of it to the Emperor by some that were Hereticks. Now that Account which they produce, contains an Anathema against those who assert two Natures, ( i. e. against the Council of Chalcedon, &c.) but the Bishop alleges that that is spurious and feign'd by them, and produces a Copy of that which he sent, which has no such Anathema in it. This indeed is no wonder: For so the Hereticks have often Corrupted the Writings of the Fa­thers, and have falsly ascribed the Books of Apollinaris to Athanasius, Gregorius Thaumaturgus, and (Pope) Julius; by which they have drawn over many to their Errors. So great a Man was Elias, that to bring over others of the Ortho­dox to their Party, the Hereticks Forge an Heretical Belief in his Name. It is true, that when the Emperor Anastasius had Commanded a Synod to be called at Sidon, over which those violent Hereticks, Soterichus and Xenaias, (or Philoxenus) were to preside, in order to Condemn the Orthodox Faith; Elias, together with Flavianus, that they might hinder the sitting of that Synod, or break it up without any effect, sent the Emperor a sooth­ing and a complaisant Letter, by which the Emperor was persuaded to dismiss the Synod without doing what had been intended. (c)P. 131. [...]. Theophanes says, That in that Letter Elias rejected the Council of Chalce­don; but it appears from the Words of the Letter produced by Cyrillus Scythop. that he did not reject the Doctrine of the Council, but only said, (d)V. Sabae, c. 52. [...]. That he did not approve of the Council of Chalcedon, be­cause upon the account of that Council there had been great Scandals rais'd in the Church. These Words deceiv'd the Emperor, and he broke out afterwards into a mighty Passion, when he saw that Elias was truly Orthodox, and intended nothing less than the Condemning the Ortho­dox [Page 78] Faith. (a)Ibid. [...]. &c. Your Archbishop (says the Emperor to S. Sabas, whom Elias had sent to Constantinople,) has made himself the Champion of the Council of Chalcedon; and not only so, but has likewise drawn over to his Party Flavianus of Antioch (of whom before the Heretical Party had some hopes, but Elias had now set him beyond all their hopes) — I am not ignorant that he is at this time, and so was before, when he refused to subscribe to the Deprivation of Euphemius and Macedonius, a Defender of the Council of Chalcedon. I therefore now, as thou seest, Decree, That he be Deposed. Let your Majesty, (b) [...], &c. Elias had been a Mo [...]k before he was made Pa­triarch. answer'd the great S. Sabas, be fully persuaded, That the Archbishop of our Holy City of God, who has been instructed in all Godly Doctrines by the antient Luminaries of our Desart, those Fathers the Workers of Miracles, does reject, as well the Nestorian Division, as the Eutychian Con­fusion of the two Natures of our Saviour, that he keeps the midway, and enclines to neither the right Hand nor to the left. We know that he embraces the Holy Doctrines of S. Cyril, Archbishop of Alexandria, and that he Ana­thematizes all those that are averse to them. And therefore we beseech your Majesty, that the Holy City of Jerusalem, and our Archbishop, may remain unmolested. I could add much more to shew how untruly and unaccurately the Vindicator discourses concerning the unsteddiness of the Patriarchs Elias and Flavianus. But I hasten to other Ex­amples. Only this I shall add, That as Elias continu'd to his Death an un­daunted Champion for the Faith, so great and so singular was his Courage, as that, together with the Monks of Palaestine, he denounced an Anathema up­on even the Emperor himself, then alive. (c) L. 3. c. 34. Nicephorus Call. l. 16. c. 35. Eutychius Patr. Alex. in An­nal. Arab. Tom. 2. p. 140. Cum ergo andiisset Elia Patr. Hierosol. Flavianum in exilium pulsum esse, ac Severum in locum ipsius suffectum, convoc [...]vit coram Sepul­chro & Golgotha Monachos qui in Anasta­sium Imp. & Severum Patr. & quotquot ipsius sententiam amplecterentur, Anathema denunciarunt. Evagrius speaks of it as of an Example of extraordinary stoutness. There were some, says he, of the Orthodox that struck the Emperor Anastasius' s Name, as being a Here­tick out of the Diptychs. But at Jerusalem, even whilst he was alive, he was Anathema­tiz'd.

But it was not only Elias and Flavianus those two great Patriarchs of Ieru­salem and Antioch, that Communicated with Timotheus, and acknowleged him as Bishop of Constantinople. For,

Fourthly, We are assured by Theodorus Lector, that the great Abbot of the Monastery of Studium at Constantinople, refused to be Consecrated by Timotheus, whilst he thought him a Heretick; but, as soon as Timotheus had given him an Assurance that he was not so, without the least scru­ple concerning the unjust Deprivation of his Predecessor Macedonius, he readily yielded to be Consecrated by him. The Abbot (says Theodorus) [Page 79] of (a)P. 563. [...]. the Monastery of Studium being Dead, Timotheus the Patriarch went to the Monastery to Consecrate a new Abbot: But he who was to be Consecrated told him, That he could not receive the Blessing from one that had Condemn'd the Council of Chalcedon. Timotheus hereup­on denounced an Anathema against all those that were either averse to, or Condemn'd that Council. Then he that was to be Consecrated receiv'd the Benediction from his Hands. This is to be supposed to be the Act not only of the Abbot himself, though that alone would be very considerable, but likewise of the whole Monastery. The same thing we find related by (b)Chron. p. 135. Theophanes, and (c)L. 16. c. 35. Nicephorus Callisti: And they all speak of it as a thing they very well approved of.

Fifthly, It appears from Theophanes, that the Orthodox Party of Constanti­nople Communicated generally with him. Timotheus (says (d)P. 13 [...]. [...]. he) being willing to in­sert the Name of Severus in the Diptychs, and to strike out that of Flavianus, was hinder'd by the People. For all the Orthodox declin'd the Communion of Severus. A plain Intima­tion. The same is attested by (e) Die Dominico dam jubente Anasta­sio Caesare, per Marinum perqae Platonem in Ecclesiae pulpito consistentes, in Hymnum Trinitatis Deipassianorum quaternitas addi­tur, malti Orthodoxorum pyistin [...] voce Psal­lentes perfidosque praecones clamoribus ob­jurgantes, in ejusdem Ecclesiae gremio cae­si sunt, du [...]ique in carocre per [...]runt: Al­terâ nihilominus die in atrio Sancti Theo­dori majori caede Catholici pro side unicâ perculsi sunt. Ad Coss. Paulum & Muscianum. Mar­cellinus Comes, who speaks of the Orthodox, their being at Church at that time when the Words, Who hast Crucified for us, were by the Command of the Emperor added to the Trisagium. Which, as he says, was the next year after the Pro­motion of Timotheus. I know that (f) L. 3. c. ult. He quotes the E­pistle of Severus for what he says, but perhaps Severus only meant, That Macedonius, while in Banishment, ex­cited the People so far, as to make 'em raise a Sedition upon that account. Evagrius and Theophanes thought that those Words were added in the time of the Patriarch Macedonius; but Cedrenus and others agree with Marcellinus. I might add, That if Marcellinus was mistaken in placing it a year too low, yet his placing it in the time of Timotheus, is however an Argument for what we Assert; for he could not have been guilty of such a mistake, if he had *He lived at that time. and wrote his Chronicle within 23 years after. known that the Orthodox did not Communicate with Ti­motheus.

Sixthly, It appears from 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. [Page 80] (a)Ap. Evag. l. 3. c. 33. [...]. 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 *V. Sabae. Cyrillus of Scythopolis, that there flourished there at that time above (b)In the Desart, within a few hours of Ierusalem, besides many others who inhabited on the River Iordan. 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. (c) [...], &c. 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. (a) [...], &c. p. 134. 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 (b)His Successor Iohn govern'd 7 years, and 9 months, and died three years before the Emp. Iustin, as ap­pears from Cyrillus Scythop. V. Sabae, c. 68. For [...], p. 310. read, [...] 'Tis their said that Elias was Deposed in the be­ginning of the Indict. It was therefore in Septemb. A. 515. 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 [Page 82] 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. 'Twill 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 (a) Epistola ad Humfredum Hody, &c. 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 c [...]nes quàm 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 care to direct the Reader where he may find it, he continues still ignorant of it, and Challenges me to produce it. What he adds of the Communicatory Letters, that our Author ought to have produced them themselves, recals to my Remembrance what he elsewhere objects against the Authority of the Treatise it self. He tells me, that the Yreatise, which I publish'd, cannot carry with it any Autority because it was not published from the Authour's own Copy. Librum illum in Bibliothecâ Bodleianâ Chartaceum esse dicis, sed satis antiquum; sed cum, quam sit antiquus, non audes dicere, & Chartaceum fateris, inde suspicari licet Originalem illum non esse, sed aliunde transcrip­tum: & si sic fe res habet, omnis ejus Authoritas ex alio Libro, quem non habemus, de­pendet: eas igitur, si placet, & alia Scrinia scruteris, Baroccianum parum aut nihil causae prodest. Thus much for the Readers Diversion.

Let us see what the Learned Vindicator has to say to this Example of the Church of Ierusalem. He tells us, That Elias by his own Cession, might ratifie that Ordination of John, which otherwise had been invalid and unobliging: And this Cession (says he) might be known by his not Challenging his Right, and by his not taking it ill at their Hands, who own'd his Rival for their Patriarch, and by the Friendly Behaviour of his Rival to him in continuing his Name in the Ecclesiasticat Diptychs, if it was not afterwards restored, but then continued as our Author supposes: Otherwise this Form in the Jerusalem Diptychs, mention'd by our Author, of wishing the memory of Elias and John perpetual; like that of the Tomus [Page 83] Unionis in Constantinople, seems rather as if it were brought in after their Deaths, to accommodate some Differences that might have been formerly between Parties, that had been made on their Accounts. You see that the Vindicator (so learned a Man as he is) has nothing of Autority to fly to, he is forced to that poor weak Refuge of Conjecture and Guess. As for that which he says concerning the accommodating of Differences, I deny there was ever any Difference: So readily, so unanimously did all the whole Church of Ierusalem submit to the new Patriarch Iohn, that there is not any hint in Antiquity concerning any Dissention on his Account. 'Tis al­leged indeed by another of our (a)A farther Account of the Ba­roccian Manuscript. An­swerers, That the People of Ierusalem reject­ed John, because he had been the Supplanter and Betrayer of Elias: But it is not true, that Iohn was upon that account rejected by the People of Ierusalem. Cyrillus Scythopoli­tanus, (the Author which our Answerer alleges) says only, That when Iohn was cast into Prison for refusing to Anathematize the Council of Chalcedon, the People rejoic'd at it, because he had been an Actor against Elias. So far is he from saying, that they rejected him, that from him it plainly appears that they all very freely acknowleged him. And this to me is a very considerable Argu­ment for the Doctrine which we maintain, That though the People had still a great Love for Elias, and hated Iohn, be­cause he had been one of the Expellers of Elias; yet they (b)This appears by the words of Cyrillus a little lower. freely Commu­nicated with Iohn as their Bishop, because he was Orthodox. Had they lov'd Iohn and hated Elias, their Acquiescence un­der the present Possessor might perhaps have proceeded from their Passions; but when the Case was quite contrary, what else could oblige 'em to submit to the present Possessor, but the Love of Peace, and Conscience? As for that which the Vindicator Conjectures concerning their presuming that Elias might have sur­render'd up his Right to Iohn; Who could ever imagine that Elias did so, since Iohn was one of his Expellers? But concerning all this matter I desire the Reader should pass his Judgment from that very particular and Authentick Account which Cyrillus Scythopolitanus has given us in the Life of S. Sabas. I shall here Translate the whole Account, and from thence it will plainly appear, That the Church of Ierusalem had no regard at all to the Will and Good liking of Elias, but that what they did they did as a thing of Course, and on all Hands own'd to be Lawful, whether he consented or not. (c) C. 56. ‘ Elias (says Cyrillus) refusing to receive the Heretick Seve­rus into Communion, the Emperor was extreamly enraged at it, and he sent one Olympius of Caesarea, the Governor of Palaestine, with express Commands to Depose him whatsoever opposition he might meet with. He comes to Ierusalem with the Emperor's Forces, and by making use of many Arts and Contrivances, he expells Elias from his Bishoprick, and Banishes him to Aila, and makes Iohn the Son of Marcianus, who had promis'd to receive Severus into his Communion, and to Anathematize the Council of Chalcedon, Bishop of Ierusalem in his (d) [...], &c. stead. When the Holy Sabas and the other Fathers of the Desart had under­stood [Page 34] what Iohn had engaged to do, they (a)It appears by what follows that Iohn was own'd as Bishop before they could have any such Reasons as the Vindicator assigns, to believe that Elias had resign'd his Right. address'd themselves to him, & entreated him not to receive Severus into Communion, nor Anathematize the said Council, that if he would not do it they would all stand by him and assist him. By this means, Iohn through the Reverence which he had for the Fathers, was kept from do­ing what he had promis'd the Governor. But the Emperor Anastasius, when he found that Iohn did not do as he had promis'd, being mightily enraged at it, remov'd Olympius from his Government, and sent Anastasius the Son of Pamphilus, whom he had made Governor of Palaestine, in his Room, to make Iohn Communciate with Severus, and Anathematize the said Council; Or, if he would not do it, to thrust him out of his Bishoprick. He comes to Ierusa­lem, and unexpectedly sets upon the Archbishop, and commits him to the publick Prison; which all the Inhabi­tants of Ierusalem (b) [...]. were glad of, be­cause he had Supplanted and Betray'd the Archbishop Elias. Now there was one Zacharias, the Chief Magistrate of Cae­sarea, who got privately into the Pri­son, and advised him after this manner: That if he desired not to be de­prived of his Bishoprick, he should by no means be prevail'd upon to receive Severus into Communion; but to the Governor he should pretend that he would; That he should pretend to the Governor, that indeed he was ready to do it, even there where he was, but least some should say that he was by Force and Compulsion brought to it, he had rather do what he Commanded, in Publick, viz. the next Lords Day. This the Archbishop did, and the Governor being persuaded by what he said, restored him to his Church. Being got out of Prison, he call'd together by Night an As­sembly of the Monks from all Parts, who, according to some that counted 'em, amounted to the number of Ten Thousand, and because the Church would not hold so great a number of Persons, he order'd that on the Lords Day they should meet together at S. Stephen's Church, which was big enough to contain all. Being all met together, as well the (c) [...]. 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 (d) [...], &c. 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 [Page 85] 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 (b) [...]. 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: (c) [...]. 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 (d)Ibid. c. 68. 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 (e) Elias died on Iuly Indict. 11. (as appears c. 60.) i. e. Anno Dom. 518. Nicephorus Patr. in Chron. as­signs him 11 years. 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 'twas 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 [Page 86] 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 Stout­ [...]ss, and their Zeal for the Orthodox Faith, as the foregoing Relation af­ [...]ords, 'twould 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; 'twould be needless to tell him of the [...] , which Theophanes the Chronographer speaks of, who a little before this time (a) [...], &c. p. 130. 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. 'Tis needless to remind the Reader of those Praises that are gi­ven them by Cyrillus in the place above quoted, (b) [...]. Theodosius and Sabas, those Champions of Piety, those Defenders and Sup­porters of Orthodoxy. 'Twere needless to tell him, that they are call'd by Isaac Catholicus (c) [...]. Invect. 1. in Armenios p. 390. Theodosius and Sabas the most holy; and by the Author of the Synodi­con, (d)Syn 3. [...]. 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 (e)M. S. Baroc. 91. Biblioth Ox­on. Responso ad Quest. de antiquitate Jejuniorum 40 malis, SS. Apostolo­rum & S. deiparae. [...]. 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 (f) [...], p. 310. the Sanctified, the (g) [...], c. 37. illuminated Sabas, that (h) [...], c. 63. 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 [Page 87] both together styl'd (a) [...] &c. Erat autem Pater noster Sabas moderato animi sensu, mori­bus lenibus & simplicissimit, plenusque omni spirituali prudentiâ & discretione: caritatem vero non sictam, sed maximè sinceram erga memoratum beatum Abba­tem Theodosium servabat; qui consimi­lem pariter sinceritatem erga Patrem no­strum retinebat; [...]. Il duo Monachorum caetum omnem ad reg­num coelorum dirigebant. Siquidem bea­tus Theodosius praeses, dux, & Archi­mandrita erat totius sanctae civitati sub­jecti Coenobiaci canonis, sanctificatus ver [...] Sabas princeps sait & legislator totius A­nachoreticae vitae, omniumque qui in cellis degere selegerant, c. 65. 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 (b) Vita ejus c. 75. Archbishop and all the People went out to meet him when he came to Caesarea; how the Emperor (c)C. 70, 71. 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 joy to see him, and receiv'd his Blessing. So great an Honour was paid our Sabas, though as to his out­ward appearance he was nothing else but a poor (d) Vide c. 51. ragged old Man. I pass by all these things: But this the Reader is desired to take notice of and remember, That by both the Churches, as well the (e)The day dedicated to S. Theo­dosius is the 11 th. of Ian. that dedica­ted to Sabas is the 5 th. of Decemb. Martyrolog. Rom. S. Sabae abbatis, qui in Palaestinâ miro sanctitatis exemplo re­fulsit, &c. S. Theodosii Coenobiarchae qui multa pro fide Catholicâ passus, in pu [...] tandem quievit. Western as the Eastern, Theodosius and Sabas are both honoured with the Title of Saints. They are not only Worshipt as Saints, but in the Litur­gies, the Menology, and the Anthology, of the Greek Church, they have, as two of the Sancti majorum gentium, their pro­per and peculiar Offices. Let us hear a little those Elogiums and Praises which they give them; (not private Authors, but the whole Greek Church in her sacred Offices) (f) [...], &c.— [...], &c. most blessed Sa­bas, (says the Church in her addresses to that Saint;) The unextinguish'd Lamp of Continence, the most refulgent Luminary of those that live a monastick life, enlighten'd with love, the unshaken Tower of Perseverance; — Holy Sabas, the fiery Pillar of Vertues, the light that guides those that sail on the Sea of the World to the Shoar of Heaven, thou that opposest the Spirits of Error, the pure Vessel of the Holy Ghost, the conductor of Monastick Persons, the exact measure of Temperance, the most illu­strious [Page 88] Example of Humility, the perfect Rule of Virtue. Much more of the like Na­ture the pours out in the Praises of that Saint; and much of the same Nature she offers up to S. Theodosius. (*) [...], &c. Holy Fa­ther, Divine Theodosius, says she in a Prayer to him composed by Theophanes. See like­wise that (†)Ap. Antho [...]gium. [...], &c. Hymn, which she Sings in Praise of him, composed by Iohanne, Dam [...]s [...]enas. Thus much I thought sit to say concerning those two great Men, that the World may see what Examples those are which we follow.

[...] it was not only the Church of Palaestine, S. Sabas, and S. Theodosius, &c. that acknowledged Iohn as true Patriarch of Ierusalem: It appears from an Epistle of Iohannes Cappadoae Patriarch of Constantinople, and the Synod of Constantino­ple, that was call'd under him in the beginning of the Emperor Iustin, viz. on the year 5'8. that the whole Greek Church acknowleged him. (The Latin Church at that time was broken off from the Communion of the Greek Church on the Account of Acacius for­merly Patriarch of Constantinople) That E­pistle is extant in the Acts of the Council (a)Act. V. p. 186. [...], &c. sub Mennâ, and is directed to our Iohn Archbishop of Jerusalem, and to the Me­tropolitans under him. It begins thus; Christ our God, who has given from Heaven the Bond of Charity in Peace, to Men that are of one Soul and of one Faith, has Commanded that what is done by some should be Communicated to all, &c. (b) [...] &c. [...]. I have (therefore) thought it necessary to signifie (these things) to your Holiness, that by the assistance of the Holy Ghost, you, by know­ing what has been done, may be confirm'd in the Word of Truth. The business of the Epi­stle is to let him, and his Bishops know, that Severns the Heretical Patriarch of Antioch had been Anathematiz'd at Constantinople, &c. and about the same matter there is another Epistle sent from the same Synod of Constantinople to Epiphanius Archbishop of Tyre. There is extant in the same Acts of the Council sub Mennâ, an Epistle of our John Archbishop of Jerusalem, and the Synod of the three Palaestines, (to which, besides the Archbishop himself, there are the Sub­scriptions of 34 Bishops) to the Patriarch of Constantinople in answer to that above-mention'd.

(c) [...]. To my Lord and Fellow-Communicant, the most Pious and Holy John, and to the Holy Synod of Constantinople, John by the Mercy of God Bishop of Jerusalem, and the Holy Synod of the Three Palaestines, now sitting in the Holy Places of Christ the God of all Things, Health in the Lord. Neither can it be alleged, That therefore the Patriarch and the Church of Constantinople acknowleged our Iohn of Ierusalem, because at that time the old Bishop Elias was Dead. For Elias Died in Banishment at a great di­stance from Constantinople, the (d)Cyril, V. Sabae, c. 20th. of Iuly, A. D. 518, ten days after the [Page 89] Emperor Anastasius and the Synod of Constantinople compleated that about which they write to Iohn of Ierusalem four days before, viz. on the (a)Vide Acta Concilii sub Mennà Act. V. p. 181. 16th of the same Month. And besides it is plain from the Words of the Epistle of the Patri­arch of Constantinople to our Iohn of Ierusalem, that before that time they own'd the latter as true Bishop of Ierusalem.

As our Archbishop Iohn was in his life time acknowleged by all the Church, so he has been all along in the following Ages. First, Cyrillus Scythopolitanus, who wrote his History of the Life of S. Sabas, about Thirty three years after (b)The Archbishop's. his Death, speaks every where of him as of one of the true Bishops of Ierusalem, and in one place he says, that he was (c)C. 35. [...]. adorn'd with a Divine Prudence or Vnderstanding. Secondly, In the Con­stantinopolitan Council sub Mennâ, (which was celebrated in the year 536. where the Pope of Rome was concern'd as well as the Greek Church) his Epistle to the Patriarch of Constantinople, and the Patriarch's Epistle to him, are recited in the same manner as the Epistles of other Orthodox Bishops are wont to be in the Councils; and in the Acts of that Council he is Styled more than once Iohn Archbishop of Ierusalem (d)Act. V. p. 157. [...] Rurfus p. 186. [...]. of Holy Memory. Thirdly, the Au­thor of the Synodicon speaking of that Synod of Monks which wrote that Epistle to the Emperor Anastasius, in which the Eutychian Heresie is Anathematiz'd, and the Emperor desired not to Depose their most Holy Archbishop Iohn, gives it the Title of a (e) [...]. Syn. III. Divine and Holy Synod. Which shews, that he very well approv'd of the Proceeding of those Monks as to their Acquiescence under Iohn their Archbishop. Fourthly, It is certain that the Names both of Iohn and Elias were continued all along in the Sacred Diptychs of the Church of Ierusalem. This is expresly asserted not only by the Author of the Baroccian Treatise in the Words above Cited, but likewise by Photius the Patriarch of Constantinople, in a (f)Entitled, [...], &c. MS. Baroc. 91. Biblioth. Oxon. Trea­tise of his not yet publish'd. His Words are express to our Purpose. They are these, (g) [...]. Elias Bishop of Jerusalem being Banish'd from his Church by the Eutychians, they made John Bishop in his stead; who had promised to Com­municate with Severus, Note: In Manuscritto [...]. and to Anathematize the Fourth Council. But he doing the contrary by the persuasion of S. Sabas and S. Theodo­sius, was so far from being either punish'd or reprehended, that to this very day he is Com­memorated as a Saint, together with Elias. Nei­ther did they who Communicated with him, suffer any thing in their Reputation for doing so.

[Page 90]I shall conclude this Chapter with an Observation concerning the good old Archbishop Elias. He, though so Tyrannically deposed, though de­posed for adhering to the Orthodox Faith, yet continu'd still to communicate with those who acknowleged his Successor Iohn. This is plain from the Testimo­ny of Cyrillus Scythopolitanus, who (a) V. S. Sabae c. 60. tells us, That (near three years after he was banish'd) a little before he fell sick and died, S. Sabas and Euthalius, the Governor of those Monasteries which he had built at Iericho when he was Archbishop, and another Abbot went to Aila, where he lay confin'd in banishment, to give him a visit: Though S. Sabas and the rest, had immediately acknowleged his Successor as soon as he was deposed, though they still adher'd to that Successor as the true Arch­bishop of Ierusalem, and though Euthalius had been in a particular manner obli­ged to Elias by being constituted by him, the Governor of his own Mona­steries; yet the good old man takes no notice at all of it, but as Cyrillus says, (b) [...], &c. receiv'd them with joy, kept them several days with him, and communicated daily with them.

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.

IN the year 538, Silverius Pope of Rome was deposed by Belisarius, the Em­peror Iustinian's General, then in Italy, being accused of a design to be­tray the City of Rome to the Goths, and Vigilius was made Pope in his stead. There being a suspicion (says (c)L. 1. de bel. Goth. c. 25. [...]. Pro­copius Caesariensis) that Silverius the Bishop of the City intended to deliver up the Ci­ty to the Goths, Belisarius sent him away immediately into Greece, and a little after made another Bishop in his stead, by name Vigi­lius. [Page 91] To the same purpose the (b) Viriges Tyrannus exercitu aggregato Romam obsidet cui tunc faventem Papam Sil­verium Belisariut ab Episcopata submovit, & loco ejus Vigilium diaconum ordinavit. Con­tinuator of Marcellinus Comes' s Chronicle, and Paulus (c)Hist. l. 16. Statimque ei (Beli­sario) à Theodora Augusta praeceptio alla­ta est, ut Papam Silverium convictum ac­cusatione falsorum testium in exilium trude­ret, ea quod Anthinum hereticum Constanti­n [...]politanum recuperatione recipere noluisset. Quod Belisarius licet nolens nihil moratus effecit. Pulsas denique est Papa Silverius ad Pontiam insulam in qui & exulans obiit. Diaconus, least any one should suspect that, though he is said to be deposed by Belisarius, yet it was not barely by his Autority, but by a Synod of Bishops: I shall here present the Reader with that particular Ac­count of the whole Proceeding, which we find in (d)Breviarii c.22. Romana Civitas (A­gapeto Papa Constantinopoli desuncto) Silverium elegit ordinandum. Augusta vero vocans Vigilium Agapeti diaconum, profi­teri sibi secreto ab eo slagitavit, ut si Pa­pa fieret, tolleret synodum (Chalced.) & scriberet (communicaret cum) Theodosio, Anthimo, & Severo, & per Epistolam suam eorum firmaret fidem; promittens dare ei praeceptum ad Belisa­rium, ut Papa ordinaretur, & dari cen­tenaria septem. Lubenter ergo suscepit Vigilius promissam ejus amore principatus & auri. Et factâ professione Romam pro­fectus est; ubi veniens invenit Silverium Papam ordinatum. Belisario (tunc in Ita­lià existenti) tradens praeceptum Augus­tae promisit ci duo auri centenaria, si, Sil­verio remoto, ordinaretur ipse pro eo. Belisarius vero Romam reversus, evocans Silverium ad palatium, intentabat ei ca­lumniam, quasi Gothis scripsisset ut Ro­mam introirent. Fertur autem Marcum quendam Scholasticum, & Iulianum quen­da [...] praetorianum fictas de nomine Silve­rit composu [...]sse literas Regi Gothorum scrip­tas, ex quibus convinceretur Silverius Romanam velle perdere civitatem. Se­creto autem Belisarius & ejus conjuae persuadebant Silverio implere praeceptum Augustae, ut tolleretur Chalcedonensis Sy­nodus, & per Epistolam suam Haereticorum firmaret fidem. — Ad quem rursus mandavit Belisarius ut ad Palatium ve­niret. Qui de Ecclesiâ exire nolebat do­los sibi praeparatos agnoscens. Sed postea orans, & causam suam domino commen­dans, exiit, & ad Palatium venit. Qui solus ingressus, à suis ulterius non est vi­sus. Et aliâ die Belisarius convocatis Presbyteris & Diaconis & Clericis omnibus, mandavit eis ut alium sibi Pa­pam eligerent. Quibus dubitantibus, & nonnullis ridentibus, savore Belisaris or­dinatus est Vigilius. Silverius autem in exilium missus est, in civitatem provin­ciae Lyciae, quae Patara dicitur. — Silverio veniente Pataram, venerabilis Episcopus civitatis ipsius venit ad impera­torem, & judicium dei contestatus est de tantae sedis Episcopi expulsione, multos esse dicens in hoc mundo Reges, & non esse unum, sicut ille Papa est super Eccle­siam mundi totius, à suâ sede expulsus. Quem audiens imperator, revocari Romam Silverium jussit, & de literis illis judici­um fieri, ut si probaretur ab ipso fuisse scriptas, in quacunque civitate Episcopus degeret; si autem falsae fuissent probatae, restitueretur sedi suae. Pelagius verò current cum voluntate Augustae, volebat [...]rritum facere imperatoris praeceptum, ne Silverius Romam reverteretur, sed prae­valente imperatoris jussione, Silverius ad Italiam reductus est. Cujus adventu ter­ritus Vigilius, ne sede pelleretur, Beli­sario mandavit: Trade mihi Silverium, alioqui non possum facere quod à me exigis. Ita Silverius traditus est duobus Vigilii defensoribus & servis ejus, qui in Pal­mariam insulam adductus, sub eorum cu­stodiâ defecit inediâ. Liberatus Diaconus, who flourish'd at that time. He tells us, ‘That Pope Agapetus being dead, and Silverius being chosen by the City of Rome in his stead, the Empress perswa­ded Vigilius, Agapetus's Deacon, who was at that time at Constantinople, to enter in­to a secret Engagement, That if he should be made Pope, he would con­demn the Council of Chalcedon, and communicate with (the Hereticks) Theodo­sius, Anthimus, and Severus, and confirm their belief by an Epistle. He having engaged himself to do so, she writes a Letter by him to Belisarius, requi­ring him to depose Silverius and to make Vigilius Bishop in his room. Belisarius to fulfill the Empress's Will, and for the lucre of a summ of Money which Vigilius had offer'd him, gets Silverius to be accused as having written to the Goths and engaged to deliver up the City into their hands. And 'tis re­ported (saies Liberatus) that one Mar­cus, and one Iulianus forged Letters in his name to that purpose. Now Beli­sarius and his Wife had privately per­swaded Silverius to do the same thing which the Empress had engaged Vigi­lius to do, but he refused, and betakes himself to a Church. Belisarius sends a messenger to him to invite him again to the Palace; he accordingly goes relying upon an Oath which was made him that he should have leave to re­turn. He returns again to the Church, and again is commanded by Belisarius to come to the Palace; but he would not go out of the Church, well knowing that some evil was design'd [Page 92] him. At last he yielded to go, and commending himself and his cause to God by Prayer, he went thither: He enter'd in alone, and was afterwards never seen by those that attended him. Another day Belisarius call'd to­gether the Presbyters, and the Dea­cons, and all the rest of the Clergy, and commanded them to choose ano­ther Pope. Which when they scru­pled to do, and some laugh'd at the command, Vigilius was by his order or­dain'd Pope. Now Silverius being ba­nish'd to Patara a City of Lycia, the Bishop of that City addressed himself to the Emperor, and reason'd with him concerning the Expulsion of Sil­verius, telling him that there were ma­ny Kings in the World, but but one Pope, the Head of the Church of the whole World.’ ( This the Popes at that time had pretended to be, and their Flatterers humour'd them in it.) ‘By this the Emperor was induced to recall Silverius, and gave order that those Letters which were produced against him should be enquired into,’ That if it could be proved that he wrote them, he should be banish'd to any City they should think fit; ‘but if they appear'd to be false, he should be restored to his See. This news being carried to the Empress, she endeavoured to prevent Silverius's return to Rome; but she could not prevail, and Silverius was brought back to Italy by the Emperor's command. Now Vigilius being terrified at his coming, least he should lose his See, required Belisarius, to deliver him up into his hands, telling him, that if he did not do so, he should not be able to pay him that fumm of Money which he had promis'd him. S [...] Belisarius gave him up into the hands of Vigilius's Servants, who carried him into the Isle Palmaria, where in their custody he died of want.’

This is the account which Liberatus has given us, and the same account, as to the main we have in the Pontifical. It appears from hence, That Silverius was not onely deposed without any Synod, but likewise by an inferior Per­son, not by the order of the Sovereign Power; that (besides that) he was de­posed very unjustly and tyrannically without any formal Tryal; and lastly, that Vigilius was made Pope without any Election, expresly against the consent of the Clergy of Rome, by the bare Arbitrary Power of Belisarius.

Though such were the Circumstances of Silverius's deprivation, though af­ter his deprivation he never gave up his right, and though Vigilius was (be­sides that) so uncanonically constituted, yet because he appear'd to be Orthodox, [Page 93] he was own'd and acknowleged by all; by the People of Rome even though they very much hated him for his Cruelty to his Predecessor and for other ill Actions, and by all the Catholick Church, particularly by the 5 th. General Council. He govern'd as long as he liv'd, near 18 years, and to this day is rec­kon'd by all as one of the true Popes of Rome. I need not produce the Auto­rities of any of the Antients to prove that he was generally acknowleged, it being a truth so notorious. But there are four things which I must not omit taking notice of.

1. That there is extant in Isidorus Mer­cator an Epistle of Silverius, supposed to be then in banishment, to Vigilius, in (a) Novumque scelus erroris in Aposto­licâ sede rursus niteris inducere; & in morem Simonis cujus discipulum te osten­dis operibus, datâ pecuniâ, méque repulso qui (favente domino) tribus jam jugiter emensis temporibas et praesideo, tempora mea nitaris invadere. Habeto ergo, cum his qui tibi censentiunt, poenae damna­tionis sententiam; sublatumque tibi no­men & munus Ministerii sacerdotalis ag­nosce, spiritus judicio, & Apostolicâ à nobis autoritate damnatus. Sic enim de­cet sidem sanctorum Patrum in Ecclesiâ servari Catholicâ, ut quod habuit amittat qui improbabili temeritate quod non ac­cepit assumpserit. Dat. 80 Kal. Princi­pe Basilio. Caelius Silverius Papa urbis Romae huic decreto Anathematis in Vigilio pervasore facto ad omnia statuta consen­sum praebens subscripsi. Pariter & 4 Epi­scopi subscripserunt, id est, Terracinensis, Fundanus, Firmanus, & Minturnen­sis. which he excommunicates him and de­grades him from the Ministery for in­vading his See by Simony; and he like­wise excommunicates all those that ad­here to him. And to this Epistle and Sentence, four other Bishops of Campa­nia subscribe. A second Epistle, is from one Amator a Bishop, to Silverius, in which he condoles with him for the injuries which he had suffer'd, and desires to know the circumstances of his Eject­ment; and a third there is from Silverius to Amator in Answer to his. In this he tells Amator, That Belisarius tra­pan'd him into the Palace, and so de­tain'd him and sent him into Banish­ment; (b) Me vero vi retento, & ante prae­dictam Patriciam deducto, miserunt; in quo modo sustentor pane tribulationis & aquâ angustiae. Ego tam [...]n propterea non dimisi nec dimitto officium meum: sed cum Episcopis quos congregare potui, eos qui talia erga me egerunt anathematiza­vi. But (says he) I do not therefore resign up my right to my See, but together with such Bishops as I could gather together, I have excommunicated those who did so to me. To these Epistles I answer, That they are all fictitious and forged by that idle and ignorant Impostor Mercator. This ap­pears from the Barbarousness of the Style in which they are writ, from the falseness of the Stories contain'd in 'em, and from their Date. For whereas the 1 st. is pretended to be dated in the Consulship of Basilius, and the last in the 5th. Consulship of Justinian when he was Consul together with Belisarius. It is very certain, First, That Basilius was not Consul till two or three years after Silverius was deposed. Secondly, That Be­lisarius was never Consul after the year 535, which was two or three years before Silverius's Expulsion. Thirdly, That Iustinian was never a 5 th, time Con­sul. Fourthly, That Iustinian and Belisarius were never Consuls together. So ig­norant an Impostor was that idle Fellow the Forger of those Epistles; for further satisfaction the Reader is desired to consult Blondel his Pseudo Isidorus. I shall only add that all those three Epistles are now rejected as Spurious by [Page 94] even the Papists themselves, as particu­larly by the Jesuit

Labbée in his Edi­tion of the Councils. It does not there­fore appear that there was ever any the least Schism on the account of Silverius, though the Cricumstances of his Eject­ment and of Vigilius's Promotion were so extraordinary. Such indeed were the circumstances both of the Ejectment of the former, and likewise of the pro­motion of the latter, so very extraor­dinary and provoking, that it is to be admired that there was none; and the Forger of those Epistles above menti­on'd, had reason enough from the hei­nousness of the circumstances (tho' not from Tradition or History) to believe there might have been some Schism, and accordingly to make Silverius and four other Bishops excommunicate Vigilius and his Adherents. I here observe, by the bye, that he that forged those Epi­stle, does not make Silverius complain of his being deposed without a Synod, he does not make him excommunicate his deposers and Vigilius and his Ad­herents, for that; for he takes no notice at all of it: but he makes him ex­communicate his Deposers because they deposed him by Fraud and Treachery; and he makes him excommunicate Vigilius and his Adherents, because he had usurp'd his See by Simony.

2. Baronius, and out of him Binius (who is every where the Transcriber of Baronius) are willing to perswade the World, that after the death of Silverius, Vigilius resign'd the Popedom that so he might be new Chosen, and that being new Chosen he was made a true Pope by virtue of his last Consecration, not by virtue of his first. A strange and prodigious Fancy! Let us see what ground they have for it. Their only Argument is this, That in the Pontifical it is said, that after the death of Silverius there was a five days vacancy in the See. Now, say they, since Vigilius was made Pope before Silverius's death, how there should be a Five days Vacancy after Silverius' s death, unless it was because Vigi­lius resign'd upon his death and was again chosen Pope after a Five days Vacancy, we cannot imagine. To this I answer, 1. That had there been such a Re­signation, it must have been look'd upon as so extraordinary a thing, as that some one or other would have mention'd it: But Liberatus Diaconus who lived at that time, and gives a particular account of the Deprivation and death of Silverius, and of the Promotion of Vigilius, makes no mention of any such thing. So far is he from doing so, that the contrary may easily be gather'd from what he says. Having told his Reader, that Vigilius to make good his Promise to the Empress, had sent his Communicatory Letters to the Here­ticks Theodosius, Anthimus and Severus, and confirm'd their Belief; he subjoins, Et haec Vigilius scribens Haereticis occultè, permansit sedens. And so he was continued in his See. 2. It does not appear that the Author of the Pontifical meant, that there [Page 95] was a Vacancy in the See of Five days after the death of Silverius: He might only mean that there was a Vacancy of Five days between the Deprivation of Silverius and the Promotion of Vigilius. 3. It is certain that the Author of the Pontifical writes very fabulously concerning Silverius and Vigilius, and plainly discovers, that he knew very little of the matter. As for his cessavit Episcopa­tus dies 5. he had so much used his Pen to, cessavit Episcopatus, at the end of every Life, that that comes in always of Course, even then when ('tis cer­tain) there never was any Vacancy. Witness the cessavit episcopatus dies 7. be­tween the death of Liberius and Felix II. and the cessavit episcopatus diebus 39. be­tween the same Felix and Damasus. Than which there can be nothing more false: For Damasus did not succeed Felix but Liberius; and Felix being put into Liberius's place, was again turn'd out upon Liberius's Restauration, with­out any manner of Vacancy. So, rather than a cessavit episcopatus should be want­ing, he adds in the Life of S. Fabian. Et cessavit Episcopatus dies septem: when we very well know, that between the Martyrdom of S. Fabian and the Con­secration of his Successor S. Cornelius there was a Vacancy of no less than a Year, Four Months and Four Days. Our Author knew nothing of the Business; but a cessavit Episcopatus he would not be without.

3. That Vigilius was own'd and acknowleged as a true Pope, not only after the death of Silverius, but likewise before, appears 1. from hence, That there is no mention in any credible Author of his being by any rejected on the Account of Silverius; so far was he from being generally rejected. 2. From an Epistle of Eutherius a Bishop (as it seems of Spain) to him, wherein he de­sires his Opinion in some Points relating to the Church. That there was such an Epistle written to him by Eutherius, appears from Vigilius's (a) Dileclissimo Fratri Eutherio Vigi­lius. Directas ad nos tuae caritatis Epi­stolas, plenas Catholicae inquisitionis solici­tudme, gratanter accepimus, benedicentes dei nostri clementiam, quia tales in extre­mis mundi partibus dignatur suis ovibas providere pastores, per quos & pascuis valcant salutaribus abundare, & ab an­tiqui hostis rapacitate servari, ut insidias nequeant ejus sa [...]reptionis incurrere: unde certum est, quia promissae vos be atitudinis [...]atia subseqa [...]tur, quan [...] à vobis coelesti­um perfectia doctrinarum tam votiva sci­scitatione [...]erquiritu [...]; scriptum est enim, Ecati qui scrutantur testimonia ejus: in toto corde exquirunt cum. Hoc igi­tar, frater carissime, propositum tuae con­sultationis totâ mente tractantos, de te quo­que provenire contendimus, qui regulam Catholicae fid [...]i iisdem s [...]udes tenere vesti­giis, quibus e [...]m in Apostoticâ fide cogno­scis esse fundatam, &c. Epistle in An­swer to it: and that it was written in a very little time after Vigilius was made Pope is apparent from the date of Vigi­lius's Answer; for that is dated the (b) Data Kal. Martii Volasiano & Ioann [...] Viris clariss. [...]oss. 1 st. of March in the Consulship of Volusianus and Ioannes, i. e. anno 538.3. From an Epistle of the Church of Austrasia to him, written by their King Theodebert, and sent by an Embassadour to him, to know his Judgment, what Penance ought to be inflicted on one who had Married his Brother's Wife. That there was such an Epistle written to him by K. Theodebert, is plain from an (c) Si pro observatione mandatorum Catholicae filios Ecclesiae opportunè [...] el importanè sacerdotes singulos decet instruere, quanto magis his, qui d [...]votioni laudabili de rebus sibi dubiis ad studium veniunt consulendi, competenti necesse e [...] ordine res [...]nderi? Hi [...]e est quod gloriosi silii nostri Regis Theodeberti interrogationem, quà nos per Modericum, virum il­lustrem, legatum suum credidit requirendos, duximus amplecten [...]am: in quâ gloriam suam desiderat informari, cujusmodi poenitentiâ possit illius purgari delictum, qui cum uxore fratris sui illicitum praesumpsit inire conjugium. Cui nos equidem missis affatibus, quorum tenorem tua fraternitas in subjectis inveniet, hoc indicare curavimus, &c. Epistle which he wrote to Caesa­rius Archbishop of Arles. And that that Epistle was sent him just after he was promoted to the Popedom, is apparent from the date of his Epistle to Caesarius: [Page 96] for that is dated on the (a) Datum pridie Nonarum Martiarum Ioanne V. C. Consule. 6 th. of March 538. I take no notice of what is said by the Cardinal Baronius and the Edi­tors of the Councils, that the two afore­said Epistles of Eutherius and K. Theodebert were written not to Vigilius but Silverius, and that being brought to Rome after the Expulsion of Silverius, Vigilius took upon him to answer 'em. That is onely an Evasion: and 'tis plain from Vigilius's Words, that those Epistles were written, not to Silveri­us, but directly to him. And certain it is moreover, that Vigilius writes, both in his Epistle to Eutherius, and likewise in that to the Archbishop of Arles, as a Pope universally acknowleged.

4. It may possibly be alleged, That Vigilius when he was made Pope, sent his Communicatory Letters to the Hereticks, Theodosius, Anthimus, and Severus, and confirm'd their Heretical Doctrines; that therefore they who communi­cated with him, and own'd him as true Bishop of Rome, were men of no Prin­ciples, since they own'd a Heretick to be a true Pope. To this I answer, That all that was done by Vigilius in reference to the Hereticks, was done secretly, and was not known to the Orthodox who communicated with him till after he had utterly forsook the Hereticks. This appears 1 st from the Testimony of Li­beratus Diaconus, who speaking of the engagement between Vigilius and the Empress, says that it was a secret; that she secretly perswaded him to promise to communicate with those Hereticks: and speaking afterwards of his Communicatory Letters to the Hereticks, and of his subscribing to their Heresy, he adds, that this he did occulté. 2. From the Communicatory Let­ter it self which Vigilius wrote to the Hereticks, and to which he added his Subscription to their Doctrine. For in that, as it is extant in Liberatus and Victor Tununensis, he expresly charges 'em (b) Oportet ergo, ut hec que vobis scribo, nullus cognoscat: sed magis tan­quam suspectum hic me sapientia vestra an­te alios existimet habere, ut facilius possim hec quae coepi operari & perficere. not to let any one know that he had writ­ten to 'em; and pretends this Reason, because by keeping it secret, he should be the better able to advance their Cause. So far indeed was Vigilius from being publickly known to be a Commu­nicator with Hereticks and a Subscriber to their Heresy, that the Author of the Pon­tifical tells us, That he absolutely (c) Ad haec rescripsit Vigilius: Absit hoc à me, Domina Augusta. Prius locutus sum malè & insipienter, modo autem nullo modo tibi consentio, ut revocem hominem Haereticum & anathematizatum. Et fi in­dignus Vicarius sum B. Petri Apostoli, quo­modo fuerunt antecessores mei sanctissimi Agapetus & Silverius qui cum damnave­runt. re­fused to do as he had promis'd the Em­press, and was therefore persecuted by her.

CHAP. IX.

Macarius, Patriarch of Jerusalem, being deposed by the Emperour Justinian, his Successor Eustochius is own'd as a true Patriarch by the Fifth Gene­ral Council and the whole Catholick Church. After some time Eustochius himself is deposed by the Emperour and Macarius, being restored, is recei­ved by the Church. According to our Adversaries Principles, either Eu­stochius, or Macarius, after his Restauration, was no true Patriarch: yet the Church receiv'd both.

ABout the end of the Year (a)Not on the Year 545, as some say; nor 546, as Baronius states it. It appears from Cyrillus Scythop. Vitâ S. Sabae, p. 371, 373. That Peter died, and Macarius was con­stituted, not before about the end of the sixteenth Year after S Sa­bas's death: Now S. Sabas died the fifth of Decemb. Indict. to the sixth Year of Iustinian, as appears p. 353, 354; And therefore the end of the sixteenth Year after S. Sabas's death, was in the latter part of Iustinian's 22d. Year, which began the First of April. And with this agrees what he says, pag. 369, 371. That the Abbot Gela­sius died Octob. Ind. 9. That after him, besides the Intervals, George was Abbot seven Months; after him Cassianus ten Months; then Conon, in whose time Peter the Patriarch died, and Macarius was promoted. From hence it ap­pears that Peter was Patriarch a­bout 25 Years; not 20 onely, as Theophanes and Nicephorus Patriarch tell us; for he began three Years before the Beginning of Iustinian's Reign, as appears p. 336, 337. 548, the 22d. of the Reign of Iustinian, Maca­rius was constituted Patriarch of Ie­rusalem in the room of Peter deceas'd. After two years time he was deposed by the Em­perour; partly, because he had been pro­moted without his Consent; and partly, be­cause he was suspected to be a favourer of the Origenian Hereticks; and great Riots were rais'd at Ierusalem on his account. He being deposed, Eustochius was preferr'd in his stead. After Peter ( says (b)Hist. Eccles. l.17. c. 26. [...]. Nicephorus Callisti) Maca­rius was ordain'd Patriarch of Jerusalem with­out the Emperour's Consent: and was therefore deposed. For he was said to be a great promo­ter of the Doctrines of Origen. He being expell'd, Eustochius was advanced to the holy Chair. As Nicephorus intimates in these words, That he was deposed by the Empe­rour: So in (c)C. 29. another place he says so ex­pressly. And (d)L. 4. c. 37. [...]. Evagrius intimates the same thing. And that there was no Synod, no for­mal [Page 98] Trial, may be gather'd from hence, That Evagrius, and after him Nice­phorus Callisti say onely, that it was reported that he was a favourer of the Ori­genian Doctrines: Had he been formally tried and condemn'd, they would not have used that word. To these I add the Testimony of Cyrillus Scythopolitanus, who flourish'd in Palaestine at that time. After the death, (a)Vitâ S. Sabae c. 90. [...]. says he, of the Archbishop Peter, Macarius being through the boldness of the Neolauritans ordain'd in his stead, and there being great Riots in the City, the most pious Emperour incens'd against Ascidas and the Origenists, commanded Ma­carius to be expell'd his Bishoprick. Now the Abbot Conon and his Associates, took hold of that opportunity, and presented the Emperour a Libel concerning the impious Doctrine of the Origenists; and by that means being admitted to speak freely to the Emperour, got Eustochius, the Oeconomus of the Church of Alexandria, then at Constantinople, to be nomi­nated Patriarch. So our most holy Emperour commanded Eustochius to be ordain'd Patriarch, and a General Council to be call'd. Theophane's, says (b) [...]. Chronogr. ad an 2. Iustini Iun. He mistakes the Reign, and places it under Iustinian's Successor. Macarius, was wrongfully deposed, [...], i. e. factione, as Anastasius Biblio­thecarius renders it, by a malicious Conspiracy of his Ene­mies.

Eustochius being thus promoted, was own'd as Patriarch of Ierusalem by the whole Catholick Church in the Fifth General Council, in which he had his Representatives: and continued Patriarch about (c) Nicephorus Pa­triarch, and Theopha­nes allow him but one Year: (and so Baronius:) But in the Author which they follow'd, there seems to have been an Error in the writing, [...] for [...]. He was made Patriarch the 25th. Year of Iustinian, just before the Fifth General Council was sum­mon'd, as appears from Cyril of Scythopolis's Words, and wa [...] deposed on the 37th. of the same Emperour, as Victor Tun. asserts. It appears from Cyril of Scythop. at the end of S. Sabas's Life, that he was Patriarch the 23d. Year after S. Sabas's Death; i. e. the 28th. or 29th. of Iustinian, a Year and more after the end of the Fifth General Council. Baronius is extremely mistaken concerning these Patriarchs. He orders 'em thus: 1. Macarius. 2. Eustochius. 3. Macarius agen. 4. Eustochius agen, af­ter the Death of Macarius, before the Fifth General Council. eleven or twelve Years.

[Page 99]After this he himself was deposed by the Emperour, and *Victor. Tun. Chron. ad an. Justiniani 37. Eustochius Hieroso­lymitanus Episcopus, qui fuerat Ma­cario superstite ordinatus, ejicitur: & rursum Macarius reformatur. Macarius was agen, re­stor'd, having clear'd himself from the Im­putation of Heresy, by subscribing to the Condemnation of Origen, Evagrius and Di­dymus. The Historian Evagrius, where he reckons up the several Patriarchs that go­vern'd the Catholick Church about the end of Iustinian's Reign, has these words: (a)L. 4. c. 39. [...]. Macarius was Patriarch of Jerusalem, being restored to his Throne, after the Deposition of Eustochius, because he had Anathematized Origen, Didymus, and Evagrius. For what reason Eustochius was deposed, Evagrius does not tell us. Nicephorus Callisti (b)L. 17. c. 29. [...]. The words which I have enclosed in a Parenthesis, the La­tin Interpreter did not understand. tells us, that the Emperour deposed him, because he refused to subscribe to his Opinions (concerning the Incorruptibility of the Body of Christ. But Theophanes gives us another reason (c) [...]. Chronogr. ad an. 3. Justini Jun.: He says it was, because he expell'd the Monks of the Nova Laura ( in Palaestine) as Origenists. What the true Reason was, is not easy to guess. As for that which Nicephorus assigns, it seems to be confirm'd by an Epistle of Ni­cetius, Bishop of Trier, to the Emperour, concerning the Heresy which he had lately embraced; in which he mentions, that the Emperour, to advance his Doctrine, had ex­pell'd several Bishops out of their Sees. What several Bishops those should be, we know not, unless Eustochius might be one of 'em; for we read of but one deposed on that ac­count, and that was Eutychius the Patriarch of Constantinople. 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 [Page 100] of (a)Vità S. Sabae ad finem: [...]. Cyrillus Scythopolitanus, that the Neolauritan [...] 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 (b) Prato Spirit. c. 69. aliis 96. 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 (c) [...]. 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: (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 (e) Ap. Surium ad Novemb. 23. c. 10. &c. Life of S. Gregory, Bishop of Agrigentum, he is honour'd with the Title of (f) Cum in D. Ma­carii Episcopi congres­sum venissent, &c. 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 (g) Vide c. 24, &c. 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 *Synod. 119. [...]. 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 [Page 102] 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. (a) L. 4. c. 38. 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 (b) Chron. Victor Tun. (c) Chronog p. 203. Theophanes, (d) Chronol. Ni­cephorus the Patriarch, (e) Annal. p. 272. Glycas, (f) Annal. l. 14. c. 9. Zonaras, (g) Hist. Comp. Cedre­nus, (h) Catalogo Pa­triarcharum MS. Nicephorus Callisti; and so the Emp. (i) Synaxario M. Aprilis apud Acta Sanctorum. [...]. 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 (k) Ed. à Papebro­chio ad finem tomi 1 Aprilis. Act. Sanct. Greek.And this is the Account he gives us. The Emp. (says Eustratius) desired him to subscribe to the Doctrine of the Aphthartodocetae (l)§. 37, 38, 39. [...], &c., 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 [Page 103] 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 might not seem to have been deposed without some cause. When the Patriarch under­stood that they had broken into his Palace and carried away and impri­son'd some of his Servants, after he had made an end of Divine Service and had administer'd the Sacrament, he staid in the Chancel; for he was told by some, that if he went out of the Church it might cost him his Life, there being some arm'd Men that expected his coming forth. On this account he stood still before the Altar after he had dismiss'd the Peo­ple, array'd in his proper Vestments till the third hour of the Night, still holding up his Hands to Heaven, and beseeching God to preserve the Or­thodox Faith, and the Church in Tranquillity. When he had done praying, the Monks and Priests that were with him, advis'd him to eat somewhat; which when he had done and had slept a little, there came in upon him that great wild Beast Aetherius, with a great company arm'd with Swords and Clubs, who took him and carried him away to a Monastery call'd Cho­racudin: where after he had stay'd one day, because 'twas a miserable poor place, his Adversaries took pity on him (for even his Enemies them­selves admir'd his Vertue) and order'd him to be carried to the Monaste­ry of the Holy (Virgin) which was near Chalcedon. And without exa­mining whether he had been justly or unjustly depos'd, they irregularly or­dain'd another in his stead, and eight days after that, they appointed a Court of Iudicature consisting of Bishops and Princes, who cited him, after he had been already depos'd and condemn'd without any Examina­tion, to plead his Cause before 'em, and to answer to the Charge that was brought against him. The Accusations brought against him were these ridiculous ones (a) [...]., That he had fed deliciously upon small Birds; and that he had pray'd many hours together upon his Knees, together with others more ridiculous than these. When those Bishops and Noblemen who were sent to him from the Court of Iudicature, to require him to make his appearance, came to him, To whom (says he) are ye come? What Title do you give me? They answer'd, being compell'd by Truth; that of our Lord and Father. Who, says he, is your Lord and Father? We are come, answer'd they, as it were chastis'd by some invisible Powers, to our Patriarch the Lord Eutychius. I am (says he) a Pa­triarch by the Grace of God, and no Man shall take away this Dignity from me. Who is he whom you have constituted in my place? They being not able to answer to these things, return'd, as bassl'd to those that sent 'em. But the same Court (or Assembly) acting contrary to all Ca­nons, [Page 104] sent according to the prescription of the Canons, a second and a third Citation to him. To which he answer'd: If I am to be judg'd according to the Canons, let my Clergy and my Patriarchal Dignity be restor'd me, and then I will make my Defence, and will produce for Witnesses, even my accusers themselves. The Court having receiv'd this Answer, did nothing agreeable to Reason, but pass'd such a Sentence upon him as was worthy of them. Which being done, he denounced upon all them a Sentence of Excommunication till such time as they should repent and correct what they had done. The Court have pass'd their mock Sen­tence upon him, that they might seem to have done justly what they did unjustly (for the same Men were both his Accusers and Iudges) they remov'd him from the place where he was, to an Island call'd the Prince's Island. Where, after he had continu'd under a Guard for three Weeks, 'twas decreed by the same Iudges that he should be carried to A­masea, there to live in the Monastery which he himself had built. Which accordingly was done.

It is here expressly said, that the Court by which he was condemn­ed consisted partly of Bishops, and partly of Lay-Lords or Princes. In the Greek, [...]. In the Latin Translation, which the Vindicator read; Coacto conven­tu Episcoporum & Principum. Concerning these Principes, what they were, the Vindicator has these words: What the Greek word was here (says he) we know not; nor therefore can we determine whether the Princes were Chorepiscopi, or Prefects of Monasteries, who by this time began to take upon 'em in Affairs relating to Ecclesiastical Cognisance, as having very considerable Ecclesiastical Bodies under 'em, who would be concluded by their Suffrages. Certainly they were Ecclesiasticks: For in the Synods of those times, tho' there were present Secular Persons to represent the Emperor, yet they never used to Vote: Onely they took care that all things should be fairly ma­nag'd, and made their Reports to the Emperor accordingly. And indeed the Secular part of the Deprivation had already been perform'd in sending the Patriarch into Exile. Nor was it requisite by the Lex Regia ( as it was call'd) in those times, that the Emperor should have any concurrence of Council for Affairs of this nature. It was therefore undoubtedly a Sy­nod, and is own'd for such in the Greek Synodicon. And accordingly they send their Summons to Eutychius by persons of their own rank, Bi­shops and Princes, which was the way of Synods not of Imperial Coun­cils. In answer to all this, least the Learned Vindicator should be apt to fansie, that what he says is not confuted by the Greek Title [...], least he should perswade himself, that by [...] here in this place may be understood Ecclesiasticks, I shall desire him to consult Dufresne's * Graec. in [...] Lat. in Ar­chontes. APXONTE [...], universim appellati Magnates & Proceres Aulae Constantinopoli­tanae, &c. Glossaries. [Page 105] From them he may be convinc'd, that by the Title of [...] not any Eccle­siasticks, but only Lay-Governours and Noblemen, or the Grandees of the Em­peror's Court, are to be understood. So the Nobles were simply entitl'd, and their Ladies were called [...]; the Order of Noblemen was call'd [...] and [...]. And Latin Historians, when they mention the Lora's of the Constantinopolitan Court, are wont to call 'em Archontes. Ex quo c [...]im in Aegyptum descenderant ejus (imperatoris Constantinopolita­ni) Archontes, says (a) Bell. Sac. l. 3. c. 18. Gulielmus Tyrius. Romanae Con­stantinopolitanae dignitatis [...], i. e. Principes, says (b) L. 3. c. 9. Luitprandus. A hundred Examples are produced by the Learned Dufresne, and a thousand more might be ea­sily produced, if need were. I shall onely advise my Reader, that in the Acts of the Councils, the Lay-Lords or Noblemen, who sate in the Councils together with the Ecclesiasticks, are wont to be distinguished from the Ecclesiasticks by this Title of [...]. In the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, not all the No­bles that sate in that Council, but onely some few of the great Officers of the Court, have the honour of that Title; and by that are distinguished as well from the Senate, which was likewise present in that Council, as from (c) [...]. Act. 1. p. 97. Vide in initio singularum acti­onum. the Bishops or Ec­clesiasticks. In the Second Council of Nice, the Two great Temporal Lords that sate there, are always (d) [...]. Act. 1. Sic in Actionibus sequentibus: [...]. distinguish'd by the Title of [...] both from Bishops, and from Prefects of Monasteries. In the Acts of the IV General Council of Constantinople, the Temporal Lords that sate there, are sometimes call'd [...], sometimes [...], very frequently [...] as well simply as with an Epithet, [...], and [...]. In Anastasus Bib­liothecarius his (e) Act. 1. p. 985. Latin Version: Omnes Epi­scopi cum magnificentissimis Principibus clama­verunt. Photius, (says (f) Vita Ignatii Patriarchae, Tom Conc. p. 1204. Nicetas Paph­lagonius) gather'd against Ignatius, the ejected Patriarch, [...]. In the Account of the Trial and Condemnation of S. Martin Bishop of Rome, translated out of Greek by Anastasius Bibliothecarius, the Senators who were his Judges (there were no Bishops a­mong 'em) are entitled Principes, from the Greek Title [...]. It is said in the Greek (g) Syn. 148. Synodicon, that certain Bishops and Monks, that were disaffected to the Patriarch Ignatius, got him to be deposed [...]. In which place [...] signifies the Secular Power; so appro­priated to the Lasty was the Title [...]. To this I add, that in the Eu­chologium [Page 106] the Title [...] is explain'd by [...] (a) P. 931. Goar renders it thus, Ora­tio in promotione Pro­cerum veletiam Patriciorum; but the word [...] in the Prayer which fol­lows, shews that [...] is not to be taken in a disjunctive, but in an explanative sense, and that by [...] and [...] were meant the same. [...].

This being premises, there are Three things to be observ'd concerning Euty­chius's Deprivation. 1. That the Successor, Iohn, was ordain'd and possess'd of the See, before Eutychius had been condemned by any Court of Judicature. Agreeably to this (b) Loco inferiùs cit. Nicephorus Callisti tells us, that Iohn was ordain'd Patriarch but three days after Eutychius was violently deposed by the Empe­ror. 2. That the Court that afterwards condemn'd him, consisted as well of Lay-Lords as Bishops. 3. That he never gave up his Right, but look'd upon himself still as the rightful Patriarch, laid claim to the See, and excommuni­cated the Assembly that condemn'd him, as acting contrary to the Prescription of the Canons, and therefore invalidly.

Tho' such were the Circumstances of Eutychius's Deprivation and of Iohn's Promotion, yet by all the Orthodox, both of that Age, and likewise of the following Ages, Iohn was own'd and receiv'd as a true Patriarch of Con­stantinople.

1. He continued Patriarch not only till the Death of the Emperor Iustinian, (which was not above three quarters of a Year after his promotion) but likewise for many Years after; and that too under an Emperor, who did not follow the Heresie of Iustinian, but was all along a Defender of the Orthodox Faith. The Emperor Iustinian Iunior, says (c) [...], p. 204. Theophanes, was compleatly Orthodox. (d) L. 4. c. 1. Evagrius, (e) Chron. Ioannes Biclarienses, and others, affirm the same; and it plainly appears by his (f) Ap. Evag. l. 4. c. 14. Edict concerning the true Faith, under that Emperor our Iohn continued Pa­triarch of Constantinople during all his own Life, for the space of near (g)Some Authors make the Emperor Iustin. jun. to reign in all not above ele­ven years, or ele­ven years and eight months, but it is a mistake. Twelve Years, and died Aug. 31. A. 577. after he had govern'd in all Twelve Years Seven Months and Two and Twenty Days. It's observ'd by one of the (h)A farther Ac­count of the Baroc. MS. p. 12. Answerers of the Baroccian Treatise, out of Nicephorus Callisti, That the Emperor Justinian became so sensible of the injury he had done Eutychius, and of his right to the Chair of Constantinople, that upon his death Bed he order'd his Successor Justin to restore him. And this (says he) was presently done; for Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople, says, John sate but two Years; and Paulus Diaconus says Eutychius crown'd Justin. He adds, That John died in a very convenient time, just as Eutychius was to be restor'd, or else perhaps he might have been an Ex­ample on the other side, and we should have met with a Patriarch dethron'd as an Intruder: That he knows other Historians put off John 's Death and Eutychius 's Restauration to the Ninth or Tenth Year of Justin; but they are Men (he says) of little Credit, and Dr. Crakanthorp in his Book of the Fifth Synod p. 340. has con­futed them already. So far our Author, with no less Ignorance than Assurance. [Page 107] That Crakanthorp pretends to confute those Authors, is true; that he has real­ly confuted 'em, none will affirm but such as are as little acquainted with An­tiquity as our Answerer. 'Tis true, That Nicephorus Callisti relates, that the Emperor Iustinian gave order on his Death-Bed that Eutychius should be restor'd: But he does not say (a) [...]., that Iustinian order'd that Iohn should be deposed that so Eutychi­us might be restor'd. Nicephorus understood the Emperor's meaning to be this, That Eu­tychius should be restor'd provided he out­liv'd the present Possessor: For (b) L. 17. c. 36. [...]. afterwards he has these words: Justin, after the Death of the Patriarch John, recalled Eutychius, as Justinian had order'd in his Will. If we go and consult the Arabians, we shall meet with some that will tell us, That Eutychius was re­stor'd by Iustinian himself. So (c) Tom. 2. p 184. Anno verò imperii sui 28. certior factus Euty­chium Patrem Constantinopolitanum veritati contradicere, ac Iacobitam factum esse, ipsum in exilium ejecit, cujus in locum suffectus est ibi Ioan­nes ut Patriarchatûs Constantinopoli­tam munere fungeretur, qui septem annos sedit, dein mortuus est. Tum Eutychius Patriarcha relegatus Im­peratorem aggressus est ope Consilia­riorum ac Ducum, qui ipsum ro­garunt, ut eum Cathedrae restitueret, siquidem falsum fuisse quod de eo di­ctum fuerat; Cathedrae ergo ab Im­peratore restitutus est; quam cùm quadriennio occupaverat, mortuus est. Anno ejusdem 39. constitutus est Io­hannes Patriarcha Constantinopoli­tanus; annos 13. sedit, dein mortuus est. Said Ebu Batric in his Arabick Annals. But as for that Author, he plainly discovers, that he knew just nothing of the Matter: Yet even he himself allows our Patriarch Iohn no less than Seven Years. When Paulus Diaco­nus says, That the Emperor Iustin was crown'd by Eutychius, he (d)He takes no notice at all of Eutychius's being ever deposed, or that Iohn was ever Patriarch. commits a manifest not onely Error but Blunder: For (e) Iustinus Imperator, nepos Iu­stiniani, coronatus à Ioanne Patri­archa. Anastasius Bibliothecarius, the Author whom he follows, says expressly, that it was Iohn that crown'd the Emperor Iustin. And so 'tis expressly affirm'd in (f) [...]. Theophanes his Chronography, out of which Anastasius tran­slated his History, and (out of Theophanes) likewise by Cedrenus. But granting (you will say) that Paulus Diaconus errs, and that Iustin was crown'd by Iohn; yet how does it appear that Iohn continued Patriarch for so many years? It appears, First, from the Testimony of Nicephorus Callisti, who in his MS. Catalogue (g) [...]. of the Patriarchs of Con­stantinople affirms, that Iohn continued Patriarch [...]. 12 Years and 7 Months. And hence it plainly appears, that in Nicephorus the Patriarch's Chronolo­gy, it ought to be read, not [...]. but [...]. I need not observe that the Greek Copy of Nicephorus's Chronology, out [Page 108] of which Anastasius Bibliothecarius made his Latin Translation (a) Ioannes Presbyter Antiochiae e [...] numero Scholasticorum, an. 12. m. 7., had as I have correct­ed it. The thing is plain of it self. In the same Chronology, it is said, by a like mistake of the Transcriber, that Eutychius was re­stor'd [...] for [...]. Nicephorus Callisti in his (b)After the words above-ci­ted, it follows; [...]. MS. Catalogue adds, That Eutychius was restor'd upon John' s Death the 12 th. Year of the Emperor Justin. Second­ly, In the Catalogue of the Patriarchs of Con­stantinople, which is extant in Leunclavius's (c) P. 299. [...] ( id male) [...]. Ius Graeco-Romanum, the same time a­bating but one Month, is allotted him. And the same Author affirms, that he was Patri­arch not onely under Iustin, but likewise un­der Tiberius; meaning, that time in which Tiberius had the management of Affairs to­gether with Iustin, as Caesar. Thirdly, That Iohn continued Patriarch till Aug. 31. In­dict. 10. the 12th. Year of the Emperor Iu­stin, is expressly (d) [...], ad an. 12. Iustini jun. Ana­stasius Bibl. in his Latin Translati­on, thus; Tertio decimo imperii Iu­stini anno, Ioanne Constantinopolitano defuncto Episcopo, Eutychius recepit iteratò thronum eundem. asserted by Theophanes; who adds, That Eutychius was restor'd on (e) [...]. So Cedrenus, who follows Theopha­nes; [...] (in ed. malè [...]. October following. It appears from this exact account which Theophanes has given us of the time of Iohn's Death, that he was Patriarch (as I said) 12 Years, 7 Months and 22 Days. For from (f) Eustrasius tells us that he was deposed on St. Timothy's day, which in the Greek Calendar is the 22d. of January: and in another place he says expressly, that it was Jan. 22. Theophanes says he was deposed Apr. 12. (Ind. 13) but erroneously. Ianuary 22. In­dict 13. on which Eutychius was deposed, to Aug. 31. Indict. 10. on which Iohn died, is 12 Years, 7 Months and 25 Days; and Iohn was made Patriarch three days after Euty­chius was deposed. Fourthly, Evagrius, who flourish'd in those very times, says, That (g) L. 5. c. 13. [...]. &c. At this time, ac­cording to Evagrius, the Emperor Iustin spoke his famous Speech to Tiberius. Theo­phanes, and after him Zonaras and Cedrenus, by mistake make him speak that Speech when (as they say) he created Tiberius Emperor, three years after he had created him Caesar. On this account Evagrius seems to make Iohn live longer than Theophanes makes him live: for Theophanes says that Iohn died just before Tiberius was made Em­peror, and that Speech was spoken. But the difference between them is only in the time when that Speech was spoken. Iohn was Patriarch at that time when Tiberius was created Caesar: which according to Evagrius himself was many Years after the beginning of Iustin's Reign. The Chronicon Paschale assures us, it was on the Eighth Indiction, September 7, the Em­peror's [Page 109] Eighth Year: He should have said, the Emperor's Tenth Year; for September 7. Indict. 8. falls in with the end of the Tenth Year of that Em­peror. So Theophanes tells us, That Tiberius was made Caesar on the Tenth Year of the Emperor Iustin. Fifthly, That Eutychius was not restor'd till after Tiberius was made Caesar, is attested likewise by the Emperor (a) Synazario A­prilis: [...]. Basilius, who tells us, that he was re­stor'd by Iustin and Tiberius. Sixthly, That Iohn was Patriarch of Constantinople at least some Years after the beginning of Iustin, may be confirm'd from the Te­stimony of the Patriarch (b) Biblioth. Cod. 75. Photius: for he mentions his acting as Patriarch on the 1 st. Indiction, which was three Years after the death of Iustinian. To all these I add the Testimony of Eustratius the Writer of Euty­chius's Life, who tells us in express words, That our Patriarch Iohn died a little before Eutychius was restor'd, and that Euty­chius was restor'd by Iustin and Tiberius, and that he continued at Amasea in Banishment above (c)§. 63. [...]. Twelve Years.

Secondly, as it is to be presum'd, that Iohn was generally receiv'd and ac­knowleged as a true Bishop of Constantinople since he sate in the Chair as long as he liv'd, for the space of Twelve Years and about Eight Months, and under an Orthodox Emperor; so particularly it appears from Eustratius, that the People of Constantinople did all in general acknowlege him, and that too, tho' at the same time they exceedingly lov'd Eutychius, and lookt upon him as unjustly deposed. Eustratius tells us, That (d)§. 65. [...], &c. as soon as John was dead (not be­fore) the People petition'd the Emperors Iustin and Tiberius, that their old Patriarch might be restor'd. He adds concerning the Emperors, That they had a very great re­spect for him even whilst he was in Banish­ment; and that sufficiently appears from their restoring him. And here it is to be observ'd, that tho' they had a great Honour for him, and lookt upon him to be unjust­ly deposed, yet because Iohn was now pos­sessed of the See, they did not think there was any Reason why they should turn out Iohn to restore him, they therefore staid till Iohn was dead, and then restor'd him. How much he was belov'd by all sorts of People, as well of other places as of Con­stantinople, and how much all rejoiced at [Page 110] his being restor'd (a) Lege S. 71, 72, &c., and with how great Pomp and Splendor he was (b) S. 74. Having describ'd the pom­pous reception of St. Athanasius into Alexandria after his banishment, out of Gre­gory Naziazzen, he adds, [...], &c. Ad hunc ergo modùm' etiam nunc suam in urbem regressus est magnus & admirabilis Eutychius, cum edquè celebritate, ut licet ab omni retro tempore multae multorum honorificae Exceptiones factae sint non solùm Principibus sed etiam Sacerdotibus & Palatinis illustrioribus, nulla frequentior aut glori­osior fuisse memoretur, sed ipsa sola praecellat & superaverit omnes. — Quis dicendo posset assequi res admirandas, mari terràque tunc gestas? quomodo scilicet constratus sit pontus, tergáque sua navibus subjiciens telluri factus fuerit similis, ade [...] ut sine impedi­mento possent omnes super ipsum incedere, & nemo prae multitudine hominum aquam ab humo discerneret, utráque autem esset labium unum, vóxque divina & coelestis omnium, Domini & Creatoris sui gloriam celebrantium. receiv'd at Constantinople, Eustratius describes at large.

Thirdly, It appears from the express Testimony of Theophanes, That Iohn Patriarch of Alexandria, Successor to Apollinarius, and Predecessor to Eulogi­us, was ordain'd Patriarch by our Iohn of Constantinople; and that tho' he was so ordain'd, yet he was own'd by the Church, and continu'd in the See of Alexandria (c) Theophanes & Nicephorus Patriar­cha in Chronolog. Eleven Years. Said Ebn Batric, who was Patriarch of Alexandria about 600 Years ago, mentions one Iohn Patriarch of that See, and Successor to Apollinarius, whom he styles a Manichee, and says, that he govern'd but Three Years, and was succeeded by one Athana­sius a Iacobite; But this Iohn was not he of whom Theophanes speaks, but one of the Heretical Patriarchs of Alexandria. For in those days the two se­veral Parties of Alexandria, the Melchites and the Iaco­bites, had two distinct Patriarchs. Said (d) Anno imperii ejusdem (Iustini ju­nioris) sexto consti­tutus est ibidem Pa­triarcha Iohannes, Orthodoxus, qui XI. annos sedit, dein mor­tuns est. Annal. tom. 2. p. 187. himself mentions a little after, one Iohn an Orthodox Patriarch of Alexandria, the Predecessor of Eulogius, who govern'd, as he says, Eleven Years, and was made Patriarch the Sixth Year of the Emperor Iustin Iunior. This is he whom Theophanes speaks of. (e) L. 5. c. 16. [...]. Evagrius speaks of him, as of a Bishop acknowleged by all.

Fourthly, It likewise appears, that Anastasius, the Patriarch of Antioch, communicated with Iohn of Constantinople, and that too, tho' he himself, had it not been prevented by Iustinian's death, had been turn'd out of his See for defending that Truth for which Eutychius was deposed; and conse­quently must be supposed to have had a great esteem for Eutychius, and no great love for his Successor Iohn. Concerning Anastasius, (f) Chronogr. p. 206. [...]. Theophanes has these words. [Page 111] In the Fifth Year of the Emperor Justin the Younger, the great Anastasius Bi­shop of Antioch, having severely reprehended John Bishop of Constantinople, who had ordain'd John Patriarch of Alexandria, and likewise the Patriarch of Alexandria himself who had been ordain'd, viz. in his Answer to the Synodi­cal Letter, which John of Alexandria had sent him, was thrust out of his Bi­shoprick by the Emperor, who was angry with him for it; and Gregory a Monk was Consecrated Patriarch in his room. Agreeably to this Relation, (a) Vitâ Gregorii Magni, l. 4. c. 25. qui (Anastatius) Ioannem Constantinopolitanum Praesulem voce liberâ reprehendens Imperatoris Iu­stini jussu detrusus in exilium. Ioannes Dia­conus tells us, That Anastasius was banished by the Emperor Justin, because he freely reprov'd John Bishop of Constantinople. But he one­ly follows Theophanes, with whose Chrono­graphy which his great Friend Anastasius Bibliothecarius had turn'd into La­tin, he was doubtless well acquainted. (b) Not. in Evagr. l. 5. c. 5. Valesius, and after him some other Learned Men are of Opinion, that therefore those two Patriarchs were reprov'd by Anastasius, because the one was put into Eutychius's place, and the other therefore ought not to have been ordain'd by him. This none of our Adversaries have observ'd: but I observe it for 'em; for it is not my design to shuffle, conceal, and prevaricate, but to present the Reader with a fair and impartial account of the Practice of the Antients. Now to this I answer, 1. That if Anastasius had absolutely refused to com­municate with Iohn of Constantinople, yet it cannot be prov'd that he did so because Iohn was put into the place of the unjustly deposed Eutychius: For the reason of his refusing to own him as Bishop of Constantinople, might have been onely because he thought him not Orthodox. Since Eutychius was turn'd out because he would not subscribe to the Doctrine of the Aph­thartodocetae, it might reasonably be thought, that Iohn, who was put into his place, did actually subscribe. And that he was thought by some, to be one of that Party, appears from the Author of the (c) [...]. Synodicon, who says, That He comply'd with the Do­ctrine of those that deposed his Predecessor: And like­wise from (d) [...]. Eustratius, who assures us, that therefore they deposed Eutychius, that they might put in one who would comply with 'em; and he plainly enough intimates, that Iohn did so. No wonder therefore if A­nastasius, who was the great Defender of the contrary Doctrine, and had been himself condemned by Iustinian to be deposed on that account, was so much prejudiced against Iohn, as not to like that the Patriarch of Alex­andria should be ordain'd by his hands. This (I say) might have been Anastasius's Opinion and Prejudice. Yet it is not certain, that Iohn did actually subscribe. Eustratius was his very great Enemy, and the Au­thor of the Synodicon, might speak onely by Conjecture. At least this is certain, that if he ever subscribed, he quickly retracted, and prov'd a very Orthodox Patriarch. This appears, not onely from his continuing so long under an Orthodox Emperor, and from his being so generally receiv'd; but likewise by the Edict which was publish'd in the beginning of Iustin's Reign. [Page 112] That Edict is not onely Orthodox in general, but does likewise strike parti­cularly at the Doctrine of the Aphthartodoce­tae, by declaring (a) L. 4. c. 4. [...]., That the Body of Christ was subject to all the Passions to which our Bodies are subject. It cannot be doubted but that the Patriarch himself was the chief Promoter of this Edict, and it's very pro­bable, that he himself was the Composer of it. That (b) [...]. all subscribed to it, is attested by Evagrius. To this I must add, That the Patriarch (c) Biblioth. Cod. 75. [...]. Photius mentions a Catechetical Oration, which our Patriarch spoke and pub­lished on the First Indiction, i. e. three Years after the beginning of Iustin's Reign, in which he laid down matters of Faith Divine­ly, as Photius says, concerning the Holy Trini­ty, and against which Ioannes Philoponus the Heretick wrote a Treatise. Secondly, If we suppose, according to Valesius's Conjecture, that the reason why Anastasius reprehended the two Patriarchs, was, because the Ordainer succeeded the unjustly deposed Eutychius; yet from the words of Theophanes, it cannot be inferr'd, that he refus'd to communicate either with him or with the Patriarch of Alexandria whom he had ordain'd. On the contrary, it may be gather'd from Theophanes's words, that he did not refuse their Communion. For if he had refus'd their Communion, Theophanes would have said so; he would not have said onely, that he reprehended 'em. Besides, if Anastasius was deposed for reprehending Iohn of Constantinople be­cause put into Eutychius's place, from thence it may be concluded, that be­fore that time, which was near Five Years after the Expulsion of Eutychius, he all along communicated with him: For if the Emperor did so highly re­sent his reproving Iohn of Constantinople on that account, he would doubtless have been deposed before that time, if he had refused on that account to com­municate with him. But Thirdly, It does not appear that was the Reason for which Anastasius reprov'd the two Patriarchs of Constantinople and Alex­andria. It does not, I say, appear, that it was, as Valesius conjectures, be­cause Iohn of Constantinople by whom He of Alexandria was ordain'd, was put into Eutychius's place. There may be another Reason assign'd, more pro­bable than that. 'Tis expressly enacted by the General Council of Nice, That all Metropolitans should be Consecrated by the Bishops of their own Pro­vince: The Ordination of a Patriarch of Alexandria by the Patriarch of Con­stantinople was directly against that Canon, and 'twas lookt upon by the other Patriarchs as a great Presumption in the Patriarch of Constantinople to pretend to ordain another Patriarch. This seems to be the thing which Anastasius, who was a nice observer of all Rules, so much disliked. He reproved the one for taking so much upon him, and the other for being ordain'd in a manner not agreeable to the Canons. In the same manner before those times, Simplicius, Pope of Rome, had reprov'd Acacius Patriarch of Constantinople, for taking up­on him to Consecrate Steven and Calendion, Patriarchs of Antioch. That this was the true Reason, Theophanes himself seems to imitate, if we duely con­sider [Page 113] his Words. It is to be supposed, that what was done as to that Ordina­tion, was done by the Emperor's Order: And thence it came to pass, that the Emperor so highly resented the words of Anastasius's Letter, as reflecting no less upon himself, than upon the two Patriarchs, the Ordainer and the Or­dained. To this may be added, That it is not probable, that the Emperor Iustin should be so much displeas'd with Anastasius for reflecting on the Patri­arch of Constantinople for his being put into Eutychius's place, since it was not himself, but Iustinian that deposed Eutychius, and since, as Eustratius affirms, he had still a great Honour for Eutychius, tho' he did not think fit to restore him as long as Iohn lived.

That Anastasius Patriarch of Antioch did not refuse to communicate with Iohn of Constantinople, may be further confirm'd from this Consideration, That Eustratius in the Life of Eutychius, tho he (a)§. 41. [...]. mentions, that he, as well as Euty­chius, boldly opposed the Doctrine advanced by Iustinian and his Synod, and suffer'd very much for doing so, yet speaks not a word of his refusing to communicate with Eutychius's Successor. And the same we may likewise gather from Evagrius. He speaking of the Reasons why the Emperor Iustin deposed A­nastasius, makes no mention at all of his be­ing deposed for either refusing to communi­cate with Iohn of Constantinople, or for any severe words spoken against him on the ac­count of his being constituted in Eutychius's place; but he (b) Lib. 5. c. 5. [...], &c. Porro Iustinus Anastasium quoque ex Antiochenâ Sede ejecit: objiciens ei, tum quòd Sacram peca­niam in superfluos ac minimè neces­sarios usus profudisset, tum quòd ipsi convitiatus esset. Nam cùm inter­rogatus fuisset Anastasius, Cur adeò profusè Sacram pecuniam dilapidarct, disertè respon­derat, Ne à Iustino communi p [...]ste ac pernicie generis humani diriper [...]tur. Dicebatur au­tem Iustinus idcirco infeusus fuisse Anastasio, quòd cùm pecuniam ab eo ad Episcopatum promoto postulavisset, Anastasius eam dare nolucrat. Objiciebantur praeterea eidem A­nastasio alia quaedam, nonnullis Imperatoris proposito ac voluntati gratificari studentibus. assigns other reasons for it. And if Anastasius had refused to communi­cate with Iohn, it cannot be supposed, but that Evagrius, who liv'd at that time, and was Assessor to Anastasius's Successor, would somewhere have mention'd it.

Fifthly, As neither Evagrius, nor Eustratius himself, nor any other Au­thor makes any mention of Anastasius his refusing to communicate with Iohn; so neither is there mention any where made of any the least disturbance in the Church on his account: No mention any where of any one person that decli­ned his Communion.

Sixthly, Tho' Eustratius, for his Lord, Eutychius his sake, was a very bit­ter Enemy of Iohn's, and speaks in his Life of Eutychius, very virulently of him, yet he no where speaks reflectingly of any for receiving him as Bishop of Constantinople. His Life of Eutychius is an Oration made to the People in the great Church of Constantinople in praise of him: And certainly, if in those [Page 114] days it had been accounted unlawful to acknowledge a Bishop who was put into the place of another unjustly and uncanonically deposed, he would in some manner or other have expressed his dislike of the Churches owning and receiving Iohn. The same we may observe of the several other Authors who speak of Iohn and Eutychius. There is not so much as one that either says ex­pressly or intimates, that the former ought not to have been receiv'd as Pa­triarch.

Seventhly, It is certain, that he was acknowleged as a true Bishop of Con­stantinople by the Church in all following Ages. This appears not onely by his being spoken of as such by Evagrius, Theophanes, Nicephorus the Pa­triarch, Nicephorus Callisti, Zonaras, Cedre­nus, &c. (a)His Collection of Canons, tho' it was published when he was onely Scholasticus, or an Advo­cate of Antioch, yet in many MSS. carries with it the Title of Patri­arch of Constantinople, [...]. So a MS. in the Chancellor of France his Library. [...], MS. Oxon. [...]. So a MS. in the King of France's Library. but likewise from the Testimo­ny of the Baroccian Treatise, 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 (b) Bibl. Cod. 75. [...]. See the whole place above-cited. 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.