call'd as appears from the same 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 at all made of Him but onely of Ananias who was High-priest properly so call'd 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 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 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 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 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
THE CASE OF SEES VACANT By an Unjust or Uncanonical DEPRIVATION STATED In Reply to a TREATISE ENTITULED A Vindication of the Deprived Bishops c. TOGETHER WITH The several other Pamphlets lately publish'd as Answers to the BAROCCIAN TREATISE By HUMPHRY HODY D. D. Fellow of Wadh. Coll. in Oxford Abstineamus nos à Convitiis ne tempus inaniter impendamus ad id quod agitur inter nos potius advertamus S. Aug. Ep. ad Pascentium Comitem Non enim vincimur quando offeruntur nobis meliora sed instruimur maximè in his qua ad Ecclesia unitatem pertinent spei fidei nostra veritatem S. Cypr. LONDON Printed by I. H. for Henry Mortlock at the Phoenix in St. Paul's Church-Yard MDCXCIII Imprimatur Geo. Royse R. R mo in Christo Patri ac D no D no Iohanni Archiep. Cantuar à Sacris Domest Decemb. 1. 1692. To the most Reverend Father in God JOHN By Divine Providence Lord Archbishop of CANTERBURY His GRACE Primate of all England and Metropolitan May it please your Grace THis Treatise being design'd for the Service of the Church as at present Establish'd I presume to make your Grace this humble offer of it It must be confest that the greatness of the Subject deserves a more able Manager but my Lord that favourable Acceptance with which you were pleas'd to honour the Baroccian Treatise has encouraged me to hope that your Grace will likewise be pleas'd to accept of these Endeavours and to excuse and pardon the Defects of Your GRACE'sMost dutifull Servant HVMPHRY HODY bestow'd upon it they are forced to confess by their Practice that it carries with it a great deal of Strength If to be opposed by seven several Answerers the latter not satisfied with what the former had urged be an Argument of Strength in a Treatise we may still believe and I hope it was so that the finding it out at this Juncture had something of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in it I presume the Reader will expect I should give him some Account of these seven several Answers which have been publish'd against it I shall lay down the Titles of 'em in the same Order as they came to my hands 1. The Oxford Antiquity examin'd c. 2. An Answer to a Treatise out of Ecclesiastical History translated from an antient Greek MS. in the Publick Library at Oxford by Humphry Hody B. D. c. 3. Epistola ad Humfredum Hody c. de Tractatu è Scriniis Baroccianis Bibliothecae Bodleianae eruto ab illo nuper edito conscripta 4. A farther Account of the Baroccian MS. lately publish'd at Oxford 5. Reflections on the Greek MS translated by Mr Hody This is not Printed but was put into my hands in a MS. 6. A Vindication of the Deprived Bishops asserting their Spiritual Right against a Lay-Deprivation against the Charge of Schism c. These six are professedly and entirely in Answer to the Baroccian Treatise But the Author of this last mention'd was I know not how so unhappy as to mistake the Question He writes against the Treatise as if the Design of it were to vindicate the Authority of the Civil Power in depriving Bishops But that is not the Design of the Treatise neither was it my Design in publishing it And from this strange Mistake it comes to pass that a great part of what that Author says is nothing at all to our Purpose 7. Vnity of Priesthood necessary to the Vnity of the Church with some Reflections on the Oxford MS. and the Preface annext The Vindication of the Autority of the Civil Power in Depriving a Bishop for Political Crimes I reserve for a particular Treatise My Business at present is to manage the last Proposition that advanced by the Baroccian Treatise In Reply to these several Answers I here present our Adversaries with an Impartial History of the Church's Behaviour throughout all Ages under Bishops put into the Places of others Deposed by a Lay or otherwise Invalid Sentence I grant at present that all Lay-Deprivations are invalid I suppose the worst in all Cases Suppose the Deprivation was not onely uncanonical but also unjust Suppose the Depriver not onely a Lay-man but doubly unqualified by being likewise a Heretisk Suppose besides that the ejected Bishop was deprived for adhering to the Truth and for opposing Vice or Heresy Notwithstanding all this I assert That if he was deprived by a Power irresistible a Submission to the present Possessor if otherwise unexceptionable is lawfull and warranted by the general Practice of the Antients It is not my Design to detain my Reader long in a Preface Onely one or two things I desire of him If any thing here in this Treatise seem long and tedious to him I desire he would be pleas'd to consider that my Design was to make this Discourse as perfect as I could that so if possible it might put an End to this Controversie And if our Adversaries shall be pleas'd to publish a Reply to what is here written I desire he would seriously compare and weigh one Treatise with the other consider if the main and more Substantial Parts of this Treatise are answer'd then judge for himself and not expect that of Course there must be another Reply As I am not so vain as to think my self clear from Error so neither am I conscious to my self of having been so Careless and Indiligent as to think I am often mistaken I mean in things material I hate everlasting Wrangle And an Adversary that Cavils and excepts against things not material I shall think deserves a Reply as little as one that Rails 'T will be hard I know to perswade our Adversaries that the History I here present 'em is what I call it Impartial But this Assurance I give 'em I have written nothing but what I myself believe That may be perhaps they will say But you have not written all that you believe You have not told all you know Why truly as to that I know not what to answer Since the Judgments of Men are so extremely different as that some have fansy'd that the Canons I omitted when I publish'd the Buroccian Treatise are really a Part of that Treatise and ought to have been publish'd with it there is nothing so Impertinent but what some or other may fansie I ought to have mention'd I cannot promise but that there may be more Canons But least it should be suspected that tho' I have produced many Instances for the Cause I have undertaken to defend there are others as good and as many that make against us which I have designedly conceal'd I shall here make this solemn Declaration That if any of our Adversaries I speak to all in general but my Eye is particularly upon the learned Vindicator can produce me any one single Instance from the time of Aaron the first High-priest of the Iews to this very day of a High priest disown'd by the Iews or a
Nicolaus p 147. l. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 150. n. 4. l. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 188. n. 4. l. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What Errors there may be in the following Pages which the Author has not seen the Reader is desired to correct THE CASE of SEES VACANT By an Unjust or Uncanonical DEPRIVATION STATED In Reply to a TREATISE ENTITULED A Vindication of the Deprived Bishops c. TOGETHER WITH The several other Pamphlets lately publish'd as Answers to the BAROCCIAN TREATISE By HUMPHRY HODY D. D. Fellow of Wadh. Coll. in Oxford Abstineamus nos à Convitiis ne tempus inaniter impendamus ad iâ— quod agitur inter nos potius advertamus S. Aug. Ep. ad Pascentium Comitem Non â—nim vincimur quando offeruntur nobis meliora sed instruimur maximè in his qua ad Ecclesia unitatem pertinent spei fidei nostrae veritatem S. Cypr. LONDON Printed by I. H. for Henry Mortlock at the Phoenix in St. Paul's Church-Yard MDCXCIII Imprimatur Geo. Royse R. R mo in Christo Patri ac D no D no Iohanni Archiep. Cantuar à Sacris Domest Decemb. 1. 1692. To the most Reverend Father in God JOHN By Divine Providence Lord Archbishop of CANTERBURY His GRACE Primate of all England and Metropolitan May it please your Grace THis Treatise being design'd for the Service of the Church as at present Establish'd I presume to make your Grace this humble offer of it It must be confest that the greatness of the Subject deserves a more able Manager but my Lord that favourable Acceptance with which you were pleas'd to honour the Baroccian Treatise has encouraged me to hope that your Grace will likewise be pleas'd to accept of these Endeavours and to excuse and pardon the Defects of Your GRACE's Most dutifull Servant HVMPHRY HODY To the Reader THere are two things which they that separate from the Communion of the Church on the account of Bishops deposed by the Civil Autority are obliged to make out to justifie themselves from the Charge of Schism 1. That the Civil Power has no Autority in any Case whatever to deprive a Bishop of his See 2. That no Bishop that is put into the place of another deposed by an incompetent Autority ought to be own'd If they cannot make out both these Propositions they do nothing at all For if we may lawfully submit to a Bishop put into the place of another deprived by the Civil Power tho' the Civil Power had no Autority to deprive it must thence follow that They are guilty of Schism who separate from the Church on such an account because there is nothing can justifie a Separation from the Church when we may lawfully communicate with it But on the other Side the Case is quite different They that own the present Possessor in opposition to one deposed by the Civil Power are to justifie their Adherence to him obliged to make out but onely one thing Either 1. That the Civil Power may lawfully deprive a Bishop of his See for Crimes or reputed Crimes purely Political Such as are here supposed or 2. That if it cannot lawfully do so yet if it has actually done it and another unexceptionable on all other accounts is establish'd in the See it is lawfull for Peace-sake to own the Possessor This Advantage We have of our Adversaries The Baroccian Treatise which I lately publish'd is a Proof of the last Proposition It supposes that Bishops deprived uncanonically whether by Princes onely or by Synods it produces Examples of both kinds are unjustly and invalidly deprived yet shews that we ought not to separate on that account from the Communion of the Present Possessor Never was a poor Treatise more hardly and severely used by its Adversaries than that has been This was a Proposition that our Adversaries were not aware of They were therefore highly concern'd to employ all their Art to weaken the Autority of that Treatise But for all the hard Names they have so liberally bestow'd upon it they are forced to confess by their Practice that it carries with it a great deal of Strength If to be opposed by seven several Answerers the latter not satisfied with what the former had urged be an Argument of Strength in a Treatise we may still believe and I hope it was so that the finding it out at this Juncture had something of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in it I presume the Reader will expect I should give him some Account of these seven several Answers which have been publish'd against it I shall lay down the Titles of 'em in the same Order as they came to my hands 1. The Oxford Antiquity examin'd c. 2. An Answer to a Treatise out of Ecclesiastical History translated from an antient Greek MS. in the Publick Library at Oxford by Humphry Hody B. D. c. 3. Epistola ad Humfredum Hody c. de Tractatu à Scriniis Baroccianis Bibliothecae Bodleianae eruto ab illo nuper edito conscripta 4. A farther Account of the Baroccian MS. lately publishâ—d at Oxford 5. Reflections on the Greek MS. translated by Mr. Hody This is not Printed but was put into my hands in a MS. 6. A Vindication of the Deprived Bishops asserting their Spiritual Right against a Lay-Deprivation against the Charge of Schism c. These six are professedly and entirely in Answer to the Baroccian Treatise But the Author of this last mention'd was I know not how so unhappy as to mistake the Question He writes against the Treatise as if the Design of it were to vindicate the Autority of the Civil Power in depriving Bishops But that is not the Design of the Treatise neither was it my Design in publishing it And from this strange Mistake it comes to pass that a great part of what that Author says is nothing at all to our Purpose 7. Vnity of Priesthood necessary to the Vnity of the Church with some Reflections on the Oxford MS. and the Preface annext The Vindication of the Autority of the Civil Power in Depriving a Bishop for Political Crimes I reserve for a particular Treatise My Business at present is to manage the last Proposition that advanced by the Baroccian Treatise In Reply to these several Answers I here present our Adversaries with an Impartial History of the Church's Behaviour throughout all Ages under Bishops put into the Places of others Deposed by a Lay or otherwise Invalid Sentence I grant at present that all Lay-Deprivations are invalid I suppose the worst in all Cases Suppose the Deprivation was not onely uncanonical but also unjust Suppose the Depriver not onely a Lay-man but doubly unqualified by being likewise a Heretick Suppose besides that the ejected Bishop was deprived for adhering to the Truth and for opposing Vice or Heresy Notwithstanding all this I assert That if he was deprived by a Power irresistible a Submission to the present Possessor if otherwise unexceptionable
Bishop disown'd by the Generality of the Catholick Church for this Reason because put into the place of another deposed by the Civil Autority If they can shew me I say any one single Instance I shall own my self obliged for the Instruction I assure my Reader that after a nice and very Search I know not one Should our Adversaries be able to produce such an Example as I think they will never be able 't will advantage their Cause but little especially if it be one of the later Ages since it is not agreeable to the Practice of the Church in general But if they are not able to produce so much as one single Example how rashly have they acted who have separated themselves from the Church on such an account I conclude in the Words of Drusius which I here make my own Scripsi haec animo juvandi non laedendi Si laesi quempiam jam me poenitet Si offendi pias aures monitus lubenter mutabo Si erravi uspiam monstretur mihi error non ero pertinax ☞ Pag. 5. lin 40. 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 Least that Proposition should be misunderstood after the words of very great Evils add I speak of Oaths of Canonical Obedience THE CONTENTS CHAP. 1. 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 Autority of S. Cyprian unreasonably alleg'd by our Adversaries The Vindicator's Notion of Heresy not at all to his Purpose Page 1. CHAP. II. That the Iewish High-priests who were put into the places of others unjustly Deposed by the Civil Autority were all along own'd and receiv'd as true High-priests An Account of all those High-priests from the Reign of King Solomon to the Destruction of Jerusalem The Instance of Abiathar and Zadok nicely examin'd The Practice of the Jews and God's Approbation of such High-priests a sufficient Warrant to us Page 16. 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 Sanhedrin 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 Page 33. 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 the 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 Page 40. 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 claim'd 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 Theodolius's Ordinations are allowed of as valid § 3. Acacius Patriarch of Constantinople refuses to communicate with Timotheus Aelurus 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 Alexandria being deposed by the bare Autority of the Emperour Zeno though he still laid claim to the See yet Petrus Mongus his Successor is acknowledged by all that accounted him Orthodox by Acacius and Fravitas Patriarchs of Constantinople by Martyrius Patriarch of Jerusalem by almost all the Bishops of the Eastern Church That they who refused to communicate with Mongus viz. the Western Bishops the Bishops of Dardania c. did it only because they thought him a Heretick That Euphemius Patriarch of Constantinople communicated with him till he found him to be a Heretick then forsook his Communion Pope Simplicius when he heard that Talaias was to be deposed was well enough satisfied till he understood that Mongus whom he accounted a Heretick was design'd for his Successor Whether Orthodox Bishops unjustly ejected by the Emperor be restor'd or new Orthodox Bishops be created he values not he only desires that they that are made Bishops should be Orthodox Pope Felix III. not at all concern'd for Talaias's being deprived without a Synod only dislikes that one whom he accounted a Heretick was constituted in his place § 5. Calendion Patriarch of Antioch being deposed by the Emperor Zeno without any Synod the Orthodox Bishops viz. Pope Felix III. Quintianus Asculanus Justinus Siculus Acacius Constantinopolitanus Antheon Arsinoites Faustus Apolloniates Pamphilus Abydensis Asclepiades of Trallium c. refuse to communicate with his Successor Petrus Gnapheus only because he was a Heretick take no notice of his being constituted in the room of one Unsynodically deposed and are ready to communicate with him as a true Patriarch of Antioch if he will but forsake his Heresy Page 57. CHAP. VI. Macedonius Patriarch of Constantinople being violently Deposed by the Heretical Emperor Anastasius his Successor Timotheus is acknowleged by all that accounted him Orthodox though at the same time they profess'd that the Deprivation of Macedonius was unjust and could never be induced by any Terrors to subscribe to it viz. by Flavianus Patriarch of Antioch Elias Patriarch of Jerusalem the Abbot of the Monastery of Studium the Orthodox People of Constantinople by the great Abbots of Palaestine S. Sabas and S. Theodosius and by all Palaestine in general at that time exceedingly flourishing for its zealous Profession of the Orthodox Faith The Calumnies of the Vindicator concerning the Apostacy of
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 Lay-power 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 't is 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 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 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 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 't was 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 't is 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
Cyrillus Scythopolitanus who 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 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 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 To the same purpose the Continuator of Marcellinus Comes ' s Chronicle and Paulus 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 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 't is 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 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 Sâ— 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 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
on the account of his Faith because he was a great Enemy of the Arians and a great Defender of the Orthodox Faith Hence it is that he is wont to be honour'd with the Title of Martyr and Confessor Theodoret tells us that the Orthodox Bishops who were present in that Synod were against his Deprivation and perswaded him not to submit to the Sentence pass'd upon him Neither did he submit for those that had condemn'd him were forc'd to apply themselves to the Emperor to desire him to execute their Sentence and to banish him from Antioch Which was accordingly done Tho' Eustathius was so unjustly and invalidly deposed yet 1. I observe that the Orthodox Party of Antioch did not separate from his Successors because he had been invalidly deprived but because they accounted them Arians That this was the Cause of their Separation is expressly asserted by Theodoret. Having said that Eulalius Euphronius and Flaccillus were made Bishops of Antioch successively in Eustathius's room he adds All these were inwardly Arians and on that account the greatest part of the Orthodox both Clergy and Laity left the Churches and met together in Conventicles and were call'd Eustathians because they began after he was carried away Socrates tells us that after Eustathius was deposed there was a great Sedition in Antioch one part of the City being for Eusebius Bishop of Caesarea and others desiring that Eustathius should be restor'd He adds That Eusebius refusing to accept of the Bishoprick of Antioch the Seditions ceas'd No wonder if the People were for the restauration of their old Bishop since there was not any other then in his See No wonder if they were so much against Eusebius's being made Bishop since he as is very notorious was accounted an Arian 2dly I observe that Eustathius being in Banishment continu'd to take care of the Orthodox of Antioch as their Bishop as much as he could at so great a distance as long as those that were put into his place were Arians But as soon as Meletius an Orthodox Person was made Bishop in his room he peaceably gave over and never concern'd himself any more as a Bishop of Antioch 'T is observ'd by Photius Patriarch of Constantinople in a Treatise not yet publish'd that Meletius tho' he had receiv'd his Orders from Arians and tho' Eustathius was still living was however own'd by the Church as a true Patriarch of Antioch The holy Meletius says he was ordain'd Bishop of Sebastia by the Arians and by the Arians likewise was translated from thence to Berrhoea and afterwards to Antioch S. Eustathius being thrust out of that See for his Orthodoxy But nothing of all this prov'd a prejudice to him not his being translated from one See to another not his being advanced to Eustathius ' s Throne when he was banish'd for his Piety and still living nor his being ordain'd by Arians But because he adher'd to the Orthodox Faith he was readily receiv'd by the Church and is honour'd among the chief of the holy Fathers He it was that ordain'd Chrysostom Deacon and the great Basil Presbyter as we learn from Socrates ' s Ecclesiastical History and from S. Amphilochius ' s Oration concerning S. Basil. That S. Basil and S. Chrysostom were ordain'd by Meletius and that the old Patriarch Eustathius was living when Meletius was made Patriarch of Antioch is likewise observ'd by the Author of the Baroccian Treatise But that Eustathius was living when Meletius was made Patriarch of Antioch is positively denied by some of our Answerers I had observ'd in my Notes on that Treatise that Socrates and Sozomen expressly attest that Eustathius was alive in the third Consulship of Valentinianus and Valens i. e. A. D. 370. which was long after Meletius was made Patriarch that he had been recall'd from Banishment by the Emp. Iovian that he was on that Year at Constantinople where he Ordain'd Evagrius the Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople in opposition to Demophilus the Arian and was agen banish'd by the Emperor Valens to Bizua in Thrace I observ'd that the Arguments produced by Baronius and Valesius to shew that Eustathius died before Valesius was made Patriarch and that Socrates and Sozomen mistook Eustathius of Antioch for Eustathius of Sebastia are not of so great weight as to be laid in the Balance against so express and particular an account as those Authors give us To this says one of our Answerers I must confess that Eustathius as the Editor observes against Valesius might have lived to the third Consulship of Valentinianus and Valens for then he had not been above 90 Years of Age. But is this the Argument of Baronius or doth Valesius produce no other Had he lookt into the Annals An. 370. he would have found that Baronius thought it absurd to imagin that the Orthodox Bishops and Catholick People of Antioch would have suffer'd Meletius or Paulinus to have sate in that Chair had Eustathius been alive That 't is incredible he should not repair to Antioch and appear in the Catholick Synod at that time and folly to fansie that Meletius and Paulinus would not have given place to him and to put an end to the Schism in that Church And Valesius proves from S. Ierom that Eustathius of Antioch was buried at Trajanople in Thrace to which place he was banish'd by Constantine and therefore could not be that Eustathius who was banish'd by Valens to Bizna in Thrace But these are Arguments not very favourable to the Editor's Designs and therefore must be shuffled over and conceal'd So that we have a full Testimony of Theodoret who wrote his History to supply the Defects and correct the Mistakes of Socrates and Sozomen and says that Eustathius was dead before Meletius was made Patriarch and likewise the Autority of S. Ierom against a senseless surmise of one single Socrates for Sozomen transcribes him who was neither so accurate nor judicious as either of the other two c. Thus much our Author But notwithstanding his Sufficiency and Confidence I still assert that Eustathius was living when Meletius was made Patriarch of Antioch First As for the Testimony of S. Ierom it might very well be so as he says and yet so as Socrates says too For Eustathius tho banish'd by Valens to Bizua might be buried at Trajanople And since that Eustathius whom Socrates mentions was banish'd into Thrace where S. Ierom and S. Chrysostom say Eustathius of Antioch lay buried even from thence it appears probable that it was the same Eustathius 2. The Autority of Theodoret is much less than that of Socrates That Eustathius was dead when Meletius was made Patriarch might be said onely by Conjecture But to tell such a particular Story as Socrates does concerning his being alive after that argues a particular Knowlege And as for Theodoret his being so much a better Historian than Socrates our Author might have learnt from Valesius
is lawfull and warranted by the general Practice of the Antients It is not my Design to detain my Reader long in a Preface Onely one or two things I desire of him If any thing here in this Treatise seem long and tedious to him I desire he would be pleas'd to consider that my Design was to make this Discourse as perfect as I could that so if possible it might put an End to this Controversie And if our Adversaries shall be pleas'd to publish a Reply to what is here written I desire he would seriously compare and weigh one Treatise with the other consider if the main and more Substantial Parts of this Treatise are answer'd then judge for himself and not expect that of Course there must be another Reply As I am not so vain as to think my self clear from Error so neither am I conscious to my self of having been so Careless and Indiligent as to think I am often mistaken I mean in things material I hate everlasting Wrangle And an Adversary that Cavils and excepts against things not material I shall think deserves a Reply as little as one that Rails 'T will be hard I know to perswade our Adversaries that the History I here present 'em is what I call it Impartial But this Assurance I give 'em I have written nothing but what I myself believe That may be perhaps they will say But you have not written all that you believe You have not told all you know Why truly as to that I know not what to answer Since the Judgments of Men are so extremely different as that some have fansy'd that the Canons I omitted when I publish'd the Baroccian Treatise are really a Part of that Treatise and ought to have been publish'd with it there is nothing so Impertinent but what some or other may fansie I ought to have mention'd I cannot promise but that there may be more Canons But least it should be suspected that tho' I have produced many Instances for the Cause I have undertaken to defend there are others as good and as many that make against us which I have designedly conceal'd I shall here make this solemn Declaration That if any of our Adversaries I speak to all in general but my Eye is particularly upon the learned Vindicator can produce me any one single Instance from the time of Aaron the first High-priest of the Iews to this very day of a High priest disown'd by the Iews or a Bishop disown'd by the Generality of the Catholick Church for this Reason because put into the place of another deposed by the Civil Autority If they can shew me I say any one single Instance I shall own my self obliged for the Instruction I assure my Reader that after a nice and very curious Search I know not one Should our Adversaries be able to produce such an Example as I think they will never be able 't will advantage their Cause but little especially if it be one of the later Ages since it is not agreeable to the Practice of the Church in general But if they are not able to produce so much as one single Example how rashly have they acted who have separated themselves from the Church on such an account I conclude in the Words of Drusius which I here make my own Scripsi haec animo juvandi non laedendi Si laesi quempiam jam me poenitet Si offendi pias aures monitus lubenter mutabo Si erravi uspiam monstretur mihi error non ero pertinax ☞ Pag. 5. lin 40. 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 Least that Proposition should be misunderstood after the words of very great Evils add I speak of Oaths of Canonical Obedience THE CONTENTS 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 Autority of S. Cyprian unreasonably alleg'd by our Adversaries The Vindicator's Notion of Heresy not at all to his Purpose Page 1. CHAP. II. That the Iewish High-priests who were put into the places of others unjustly Deposed by the Civil Autority were all along own'd and receiv'd as true High-priests An Account of all those High-priests from the Reign of King Solomon to the Destruction of Jerusalem The Instance of Abiathar and Zadok nicely examin'd The Practice of the Jews and God's Approbation of such High-priests a sufficient Warrant to us Page 16. 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 Sanhedrin 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 Page 33. 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 the 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 Page 40. 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 claim'd 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 allowed of as valid § 3. Acacius Patriarch of Constantinople refuses to communicate with Timotheus Aelurus not because he was put into the place of Timotheus Salofuciolus unjustly deposed by