made. For this reason, the choirs of angels and of men magnify thee. A
*Troparium.*
To whom, I ask, shall I betake myself, O most holy one? Whither shall I flee that I may be saved? Whither shall I turn? What refuge, what fervent help, what helper in afflictions shall I find? In thee alone I hope, in thee alone I glory, and to thee have I fled with confidence.
No one, indeed, O Bride of God, could recount thy great deeds and the inscrutable abyss of thy miracles, for which all ardently venerate thee and worship thee as the true Mother of God. In hymns fulfilling the duty of thanksgiving, I celebrate thy infinite mercy, and I proclaim to all thy great power and the benefits thou hast poured out upon me, and I announce them with mind, heart, soul, and voice. B
Receive my most humble prayers, and lend thine ears to my cry, and look upon my tears, and grant what I beseech of thee; for thou art all-powerful, as the Mother of the omnipotent Lord, provided thou lookest upon my humility.
Deliver us, thy servants, O Mother of God, from dangers. For after God, we flee to thee as an impregnable wall and protectress.
Look, most illustrious Mother of God, in thy clemency, upon the miseries by which my body is vexed, and bring a remedy to the pains of my troubled soul.
*We produce Theodorus's book on natural communication from the manuscripts in the Addenda.*
ANNO DOMINI MCCLXI METHODIUS THE MONK NOTITIA (Angelo Mai, *Scriptorum veterum nova collectio*, vol. III, p. 246)
While I was preparing and printing in Latin the Catalogue of the Byzantine Patriarchs by Ephraem, many things written in the Vatican codices concerning the aforementioned patriarchs occurred to me, which were often worthy of the light and which increased the history of the individual prelates and of the times, and illustrated ecclesiastical matters in a preeminent way. But I have such a great number of letters, sermons, decrees, treatises, and acts of synods in my hands that a peculiar volume of these writings seems, at a later time, to be needed for this collection of mine. Now, these all being set aside, I have chosen one unpublished little book by Methodius the monk, than which I have seen almost none more apt for bringing before the eyes the various vicissitudes of the Byzantine see. The cause of writing this little work, moreover, was this: Emperor Michael VIII Palaeologus, in the year of Christ 1264—after Constantinople had been recovered and the Latins expelled—blinded John III Ducas Lascaris, who, left a ward by his father, was growing up under the guardianship, as it were, of Michael, and was later to reign with him; and thus he drove him from all hope of the kingdom. Arsenius, the Byzantine patriarch, bore the atrocity of the deed with great bitterness; and he proceeded to the point of removing the Emperor Michael from ecclesiastical communion: the latter, meanwhile, readily confessing his fault, as was right, implored canonical absolution. When the patriarch, hesitant and indignant, denied this, Michael, having convoked a synod of bishops, strove to ensure that Arsenius...
...Arsenius was expelled from the see, and Germanus III was substituted in his place. One may understand this matter more fully from the testament of Arsenius which Cotelerius published in *Monum. eccl. Gr.*, vol. II, p. 168. Likewise, when Joseph had been expelled by the artifices of the abbot Joseph, Joseph himself obtained the patriarchal see, with the support of the Emperor. Meanwhile, the Byzantine Church labored under a serious schism, while some supported Arsenius as one deposed unjustly, and others, as often happens, followed the new patriarch Joseph. In this burning heat of spirits, and in the midst of these ecclesiastical disturbances, the monk Methodius, in order to counteract the schism (which is surely the worst evil for the Church), decided to write a small book in which he might demonstrate that the Byzantine Church, although it often received pastors against its will, contrary to the most equitable and holy norms of the canons—at the behest of the powerful Emperors (concerning whom one should read Lequien, *Or. Ch.*, vol. I, dissert. praev. cap. 17)—nonetheless took care perpetually that no schism should occur among the people, provided that these prelates retained the orthodox faith. In this, indeed, the entire sum of the little work revolves; Allatius long ago provided notice of it, or its title, in *Diatribe de Methodiis*, p. 383, but he did not indicate for us where it lay hidden; yet I found it in the Vatican codices, and it seemed worthy of being printed and useful. For although another anonymous author has treated the same subject—which Humphry Hody published at Oxford in the year 1691 from the Baroccian codex (a)—the Baroccian little work is shorter, and sufficiently different from this Vatican one, as I have discovered by reading it.
(a) The title of the little work published by Humphry is as follows: *A Refutation of the New Anglican Schism, or a Treatise from Ecclesiastical Histories, by which it is shown that bishops, even if unjustly deposed, have never refused the communion of an orthodox successor.* Ed.
A LITTLE BOOK ON AVOIDING SCHISM
A A COLLECTION by the monk Methodius from various synoptic books, [demonstrating] that the people ought not to separate themselves from the bishops, provided they are orthodox, even if their ordination has come about through some criminal circumstance.
1. It must be known that when the great Gregory the Theologian resigned from the throne of Constantinople and departed, Nectarius was ordained patriarch, and after him the great Chrysostom. When the latter had been unjustly cast out, Arsacius, the brother of the aforementioned Nectarius, was brought to the throne against all canonical observance, not only because of the unjust exile of the holy Chrysostom, but also because, as it is said, being jealous toward his own brother Nectarius, he had sworn to him that he would never accept the throne of the Royal City. After him, Atticus was brought to the throne while Chrysostom was still alive; for the latter, having survived for twenty B years after his [deposition from the] throne, died. But the schisms of the Church were resolved while Atticus was still alive, by his having placed the divine Chrysostom among the orthodox patriarchs in the holy diptychs. After Atticus, [came] Sisinnius; after him, Nestorius. When the latter was deposed in the third synod, Maximianus is ordained bishop of Constantinople. Upon his death, the holy Proclus is moved from Cyzicus to Constantinople, with the knowledge and consent of the one who was at that time the high priest of Rome, as Zonaras relates in his *Chronicle* (1) and as is found elsewhere. Now, the divine Proclus communicated with the holy Proclus of Alexandria; and not only he, but also his predecessor Maximianus, and also
Sisinius and Atticus. For neither Cyril nor the remaining patriarchs opposed anyone on account of the translation of the see, or an election foreign to the supreme canon law. Nor, indeed, were the ordinations of these bishops repudiated by anyone. For how could that have happened, when the aforementioned authorities were in agreement? B
2. And that this statement is true is evident from other sources, and evidently from the letter to Nestorius of the holy Celestine, Pope of Rome, which begins: « A few days of our life, » and a little later: « Immediately Atticus of holy memory, the doctor of the catholic faith, and truly the successor of the blessed John in these matters. » And with much intervening, « Yet why are the things that were done against them then investigated, since it is certain that the files were sent thence to us by the then-bishop, the catholic Atticus? » The same person, writing also to the clergy of Constantinople, and to the bishops, presbyters, and deacons then residing there, against Nestorius, says thus: « For to begin with more recent matters, what did the instruction of John the bishop of holy memory not teach your souls, whose discourse, establishing the catholic faith, was poured out into the whole world? He who nowhere failed through his doctrine, for wherever he was read, he preached. The persistence of his diligent prudence succeeded. For the bishop of holy memory, Atticus, ruled the Christian people by the example of his predecessor, and pursued the sacrilegious furies of the heretics. » C Cyril also in his own letter to Nestorius says: « I testify that while Atticus of blessed memory was still living, I wrote a book concerning the holy and consubstantial Trinity. » Thus, therefore, did they conduct themselves and speak.
3. But who is ignorant of that which I am about to say? — namely, that of those who brought about the most unjust and most lawless deposition of the great Chrysostom, the first cause was Theophilus of Alexandria; and after him, Severianus of Gabala and Acacius of Berrhoea. Yet these men, after the falling asleep of Chrysostom, although they had been accused before Pope Innocent, were neither deposed nor rebuked, because the Pope left the penalties to be exacted from them on account of Chrysostom to the judgment of God. But who cast out Theophilus himself, the author in word and deed of all the evils against Chrysostom on account of the envy he had conceived against him? Especially since we read in the Lives of the Fathers thus: « Saint Theophilus, bishop of Alexandria, said. » That the Church holds these men, however, in the number of venerable patriarchs and shepherds is testified by the fact that—
the synaxaria of the churches give us this information, in which we read: « On the eleventh day of October, the commemoration of our holy Fathers, the bishops of Constantinople, Nectarius, Arsaces, Atticus, and Sisinnius. » Likewise in the fourth tone, the troparion: « O divine governors of the peoples, be intercessors before God, the governor of all, and in accordance with your office, directing your flock from heaven even now, ask for peace for our souls. »
B 4. After Proclus, the great Flavian, who had deposed the archimandrite Eutyches, became bishop of the city of Byzantium. Yet he was put to death in the robber-synod at Ephesus, because he had condemned Eutyches, who was of one mind with Dioscorus; whether this was because Dioscorus jumped on him with his heels, or as others say, because he was driven into exile by Barsumas and ordered to be killed by assassins along the way. Then Anatolius was substituted into the see of Flavian by Dioscorus—a man, as I have said, who was a heretic and who had brought death upon the holy Flavian. Although Dioscorus was deposed by the fourth synod, nevertheless, neither Juvenalis of Jerusalem, nor any other of those who had cooperated with Dioscorus in the unjust deposition of the holy Flavian and in the blameworthy promotion of Anatolius, were deposed, nor was anyone even rebuked; not even Anatolius himself, ordained in the manner we have mentioned. This is also testified by the letter of Pope Leo to the Emperor Marcian, written because of the disturbance of the dioceses at that time, where these words are read: « But because he, namely Anatolius, has embraced the orthodox faith, we have omitted to institute an inquiry regarding his ordination. Let him therefore remain in this state of affairs, and let him attempt nothing further. »
C 5. But to these things, perhaps one of those who today speak so intemperately might reply, using that Lord Arsenius as a pretext: those who, having gone beyond every limit of modesty, have ruined the entire Church of God and have thrown the whole world into confusion as far as it lay within them, filling all forums and houses every day with contentious and quarrelsome inquiries, although most of them are not even able to understand the things for which they are fighting; for what are these things? D I say, they will say: What is the point of these things? There are others now who have suffered injury, and there are others who have written the sentence of punishment: but the matter concerned these men little or nothing; they judged according to the circumstances: perhaps they also thought that by this judgment they would establish a reputation for equity, and they thought they would attain praise somewhere. Surely, if anyone speaks in this manner regarding the aforementioned business, he may be heard. But, indeed, concerning John, the light of the world, endowed with a golden tongue, who would dare to speak in such a way? Was he not himself suffering the darts of envy and injury? Yet, nevertheless, being the exact exemplar of truth, he left the injury inflicted upon him to God, who is the judge of the whole world, concerning the Church and the concern that it should not be divided.
A And if anyone should be brought against his will to ordination, not having sought the office, let him be ordained according to the consensus of all. B Being anxious for the peace of the Church, and fearing lest the body of Christ be torn asunder, when interrogated by forty bishops of his own party as to what he would advise them to do in the face of such wickedness of injuries and such contempt of the canons, he answered, while praying and exhorting, that they should communicate with their adversaries, lest they become responsible for schism. He did not, furthermore, attribute the guilt to those who had unjustly and contrary to the canons condemned him, but rather he ascribed it to those who favored him, the holy bishops, unless they were to communicate with the rest and preserve concord, seeing that the adversaries likewise maintained orthodoxy. The same [Chrysostom] in an allocution to the holy Olympias, which he delivered while leaving the church and setting out for exile, says this: "It is not possible that the Church of God should remain thus widowed. If, therefore, anyone should be ordained, submit to him as a father, and incline your head submissively, just as you do to me." These things are well-known to those who read the Life of Chrysostom. But enough of that matter.
6. As it is written in the Life of the great Sabas, when Euthymius had been cast from his see, he [the Emperor], not accepting the heresy of the Acephali, of which he himself was a devotee, substituted Macedonius, whom he judged to be his own follower. But because the man appeared to be orthodox, he himself was immediately driven from the see and the city; and Timotheus was ordained in his stead: but he also was soon expelled by the impious Caesar, because he was discovered to be orthodox. And these men experienced such a fate. Meanwhile, the holy Helias, patriarch of the holy city, hearing these things, was indeed troubled in spirit because of the unjust deposition of the aforementioned patriarchs; C nevertheless, he none the less communicated with the one newly elected after the expulsion of his predecessor, because both were orthodox. Nay, even this saintly Helias himself was dragged from his own see by the forces of this heresy and thrown into chains: and in his place was substituted John, who consented to the heresy, and did not depart from the imperial judgment. Nevertheless, this John was an intimate friend and acquaintance of the divine Sabas; yielding to whose admonitions, he immediately withdrew from the heretical opinion and sect, and embraced with his whole heart the faith of Helias and of the holy Fathers Sabas and Theodosius.
7. For when at one time, by imperial mandate, D all the people and an innumerable multitude of monks had gathered, according to custom, in the temple of the holy protomartyr, as if the patriarch John were about to pronounce anathema upon those who admitted the fourth synod and repudiated Severus the Acephalus; for John had promised the royal ministers that he would do this;
A but he was led up to the ambo, and with him were Sabas and Theodosius, the superiors of the monks and champions of the Orthodox faith; both, therefore, stood on either side of the patriarch. There was also present in the temple the emperor's nephew, Hypaticus, who had recently returned from captivity. Then, indeed, John utterly failed in the promises he had made to Anastasius, obeying the counsels of Theodosius and Sabas. For with a loud voice he excellently pronounced anathema against those who would not accept the fourth ecumenical synod along with the three before it; he cast out the Acephali, and those who held the opinions of the heretics. B Those who held the views of the emperor and were present in the divine temple were put to shame, and the Orthodox were emboldened, and all gathered around the patriarch, immediately disregarding his ordination which had been contrary to the sacred canons. From that time, therefore, the blessed Sabas and Theodosius showed honor and veneration to the patriarch John, who occupied the see, because he was now Orthodox; and at the same time [they honored] Elias, who was held in prison for the sake of the right faith. In this matter, they were imitating the holy Elias himself; for so he too had in earlier times behaved toward the Constantinopolitans Euthymius and Macedonius, and later had equally communicated with Timothy, formerly a scholasticus of Antioch and apocrisiarius, and in addition to these, [with] Theodosius.
8. Justinian the emperor also deposed the holy Eutychius from the throne and sent him into exile to his monastery at Amasea, and raised John to his throne; C whom also the Church received, because he was Orthodox; and furthermore, [he received] Anthimus, whom the same emperor had translated from the Church of Trapezus to the throne of the Queen of cities, and who was later deposed by Pope Agapetus because he wished to hold to the heresy. Menas was ordained in his place. Those men ordained by him were admitted to communion, as many as bade farewell to the heretical error, for Anthimus was fostering the heresy of Severus. But after the most evil heresy of the Monothelites arose, whom among those ordained by them did the sixth synod not admit—at which, moreover, presided Agatho, Pope of Rome, George of Constantinople, and Theophanes of Antioch—if only he renounced the heresy and professed the Orthodox faith? Likewise, Justinian Rhinotmetus D unjustly deposed the most holy Callistus, Bishop of Constantinople, from his throne, and drove him, a fugitive from the royal city, and blinded him before sending him to older Rome. He brought the recluse Cyrus from the city of Amastris and placed him on that throne, because he had predicted to him his return to the royal city and the recovery of his empire. But Philippicus, who is also Bardanes, having obtained the empire, annulled the sixth ecumenical synod, as he thought, by foolishly celebrating a council against it (for he had promised that he would do this to the monk of the Callistratic monastery who had predicted the empire to him).
A He deposed the patriarch and chose as his successor John, who was a fervent lover of the nefarious heresy of the Monothelites. But Artemius, who was also called Anastasius, having set his heart on the royal scepter, translated the holy Germanus from Cyzicus to the throne of the Queen of Cities, having cast out John, who, as I have said, had raged against the holy sixth synod.
9. But since by the judgments which God knows, Leo the Isaurian seized control of the empire, and after the ninth year of his reign stirred up iconoclasm, he sent the holy Germanus into exile, being unable to bear his reproofs, and entrusted the throne of the city to Anastasius. And because iconoclasm raged for an interval of fifty-seven years, there were, as is natural, many in succession who were patriarchs of this city; until, in the days of the patriarch Tarasius, under the rule of Irene the Great with her son Constantine, the seventh synod was convened. And no one was rejected who had received ordination from the Iconoclasts, provided only that he abjured that heresy; except for the authors and ringleaders of the heresy, and for anyone who might have remained unyielding to the end. But lo, after the most religious Curopalates emperor, Leo the Armenian, having occupied the throne by tyranny, awakened the iconoclasm that had been put to sleep, and drove the holy Nicephorus into exile, dragging him from his chair. B Him Michael the Stammerer succeeded, and to this man his son Theophilus. During the whole twenty-six years in which these heretics are recorded as having exercised tyranny, almost no orthodox person appeared as patriarch. However, after the death of Theophilus, the great Theodora appointed the most holy Methodius as patriarch; and he, with the support and counsel of the great ascetic among monks, Joannicius, as may be read in his Life, received into communion all those who turned back from the heresy.
10. Now attend also to the scandals that occurred in the Church on account of the most wicked and insubordinate Joseph, the steward of that same Church, in the times of the most holy patriarchs Tarasius and Nicephorus, and of Theodore the Studite and Confessor. C For this Joseph, when Constantine, the son of the great Irene, had repudiated his lawful wife and had taken another in adultery unlawfully to his bed, Joseph, I say, blessed the marriage contrary to the prohibition of the holy Tarasius; for which the wicked Joseph was excommunicated by him, though not in perpetuity. For, albeit against his will and completely reluctantly, Tarasius was forced by the emperor Constantine to receive him back into communion; for the emperor threatened that, if he did not receive Joseph, who had blessed his marriage, as patriarch, he would wickedly stir up again the impious iconoclasm which had already been successfully suppressed. D
A This man, as it has been said, was later admitted by Nicephorus, the patriarch and confessor, though compelled by Nicephorus the general, who had violently usurped the empire after expelling the blessed Irene. But after Nicephorus fell shamefully in the war against the Bulgarians, and the empire passed to his son Stauracius, who died after reigning for only two months, Michael Curopalates gained the scepter; and immediately Joseph was, most worthily—as one might say with great joy—excommunicated by the holy patriarch Nicephorus.
11. After this had taken place, the divine Theodore came into communion with the Church; and he was united with the patriarch in a manner worthy of his own knowledge and virtue, as is recorded in his Life, and as is reported in one of his letters. For he who wrote the account of his life says as follows: "After the divine Theodore and the patriarch Nicephorus had returned from exile, Theodore, having cast off his contentious and quarrelsome manner, was entirely of one mind with the patriarch, dwelling under the same roof, sharing the same table, and crowning him B with many praises." The words of the great patriarch and confessor Methodius accord with what has been said; for he says this in one of his letters to the Saccudiani and Bescetiani, who were not yet reconciled to the Church, but remained in schism from it: "For if your blessed Father Theodore had not first rejected and retracted all that he had said and written against the holy patriarchs Tarasius and Nicephorus, we would not have received him into communion." And whoever wishes to see this letter should seek it in the book of our holy Father Nikon (15). The great Methodius himself, having survived for four years in the throne, departed this life piously and devoutly.
12. And when the holy patriarch Ignatius had been proclaimed, Bardas, the uncle of the emperor Michael, C [The Greek column here inserts a passage regarding the Studite monks, which the Latin column summarizes:] Let those things which the great among confessors and patriarchs, Methodius, said to the Studite monks—who were separating themselves from the Church on account of the writings of their Father, the holy Theodore the Studite, against the most holy patriarchs Tarasius and Nicephorus—be read here. He said, in effect, these things: "If you do not anathematize the books written against the all-holy Nicephorus and Tarasius, either today in the presence of the brethren and fellow ministers, or on a set day when your number has come to our monastery to hear, and if you do not set down the decree to burn and anathematize them, just as we have written in our defense regarding the administration of the Church, know, brethren, that we shall anathematize not only you yourselves, but also those who uphold them, and shall condemn them even more shamefully. For your blessed abbot and teacher, having fulfilled his life’s end in communion with us, by his own deeds nullified his own words; for he would never have been with us if he had retained in his own mind what he wrote against us." Let also what the same great one among patriarchs, Methodius, most justly declared in his letters against the same Studites be read, so that you may know, etc.
To these Studites, then, these things must be said, and let even those who are not present hear: that if they do not anathematize the writings attributed to their Father against the most holy Nicephorus and Tarasius, they shall not be in communion with him—may it not be so. It must be known that the disciples of the Studite, after the passing of that holy man, not wishing to submit to the Catholic Church but preferring to be led by their own will, taking those initial accusations as an excuse, once again tore themselves apart and separated from the Catholic Church; against whom the holy Methodius, being moved, uttered the anathema synodically.
(13) I read this letter in a very learned and prolix treatise by a Greek author not yet printed, but, as I think, to be published later in this collection, in which it is again clearly demonstrated from ecclesiastical history, the writings of the Fathers, and the decrees of synods, how much one must beware of schism. Here is an excerpt of the letter of the patriarch Methodius, or rather of two letters: D A certain portion of this letter has already been cited by Allatius in his *Dissertatio de Methodiis*, p. 377. In the margin of the codex, however, the history of the matter is written thus:
A Caesar, B shamefully doting upon his daughter-in-law, and having sent a letter of divorce to his own wife, when he was ordered by Saint Ignatius to abandon that incestuous love, in order to avoid reproof and the infamy that ensued from such things (for the patriarch had even excluded him from the Church), he drove Ignatius from the see, abusing, in truth, the fickleness of Michael to satisfy his own lust. Once he had been expelled, through the zeal and counsel of Bardas, but by the authority of Michael, Photius was brought up to the throne. But when Basil the Macedonian, having killed Michael, had grasped the kingdom, he deposed Photius and restored Ignatius. The cause of the matter, it is said, was that Photius, by sending a messenger, had forbidden Basil from communion at the sacred table, while he still carried his hand stained with the slaughter of Michael. But when Ignatius had departed from this life, the dignity was once again conferred upon Photius by the same emperor; whose son, Leo, famous by the name of the Philosopher, removed Photius from the see for a second time, fearing, as they say, that he might defend Santabarenus in the case of calumny which that man had once constructed against him before his father, the emperor. For this was what kept occupying the mind of Leo, who had recently attained the kingdom. Therefore, he created his own brother, Stephen, patriarch by royal force. Yet none of these patriarchs was rejected; but all were admitted and held in honor among the Church of the faithful, and are and are recognized as such even now. And this is made clear from the synodical book, where these things are held: "May there be eternal memory of the most holy patriarchs Ignatius, Photius, Stephen, and Antony." And again: "Anathema to those things which were said or written against the most holy patriarchs Ignatius and Photius."
13. But I, having just lately mentioned the synodical book, will add other words of which I had almost forgotten. For so it is read therein besides: "May there be eternal memory of the most holy fathers Tarasius and Nicephorus." And again: "Anathema to those things which were said or written against the praiseworthy patriarchs Tarasius and Nicephorus." See the upright and God-pleasing judgment of the holy and catholic Church, of the holy apostles who were heralds of the Gospel, and of our holy Fathers, you, I say, who resist the general assembly of the orthodox. Tremble, I pray, at the depth of the abyss of evils into which you are rushing through your discord, and apply care to your amendment. For all the aforementioned men to whom sacred honor is held, since they were men, suffered something human: for you know with what words and writings they opposed one another D; because, to be sure, they had found causes for controversy that were plausible in appearance, and each believed he was pursuing his own right: which very thing some of your own men also seem to have done in recent times. And for those things which many do—out of those who pretend to have a zeal for supreme rectitude among you—it is more fitting to commit them to silence than to writing; for it is shameful, says the divine Apostle, even to mention the things that are done in secret by some.
But those who have returned from your error to us recount the matters concerning such people, making their confession with great compunction A and tears. As for me, I have said that those aforementioned saints, having suffered something human, spoke and wrote what they wrote. But the divinely inspired judgment of the Church has subjected what was said and written during the time and heat of contention to a synodical anathema; yet it has received all who spoke and wrote those things with open arms; and it proclaims "Eternal be his memory" for all of them alike.
14. What then are we to learn from this? That it is better B for the harmony and peace of orthodox Christians, if it be kept firmly and concordantly with the fear of God and with charity, than to seem to pursue strict observance while tearing the beautiful body of Christ's Church. "For in this," says the Lord, "shall all men know that you are My disciples"—not if you seem to cling firmly to strict observance, but "if you love one another." Therefore, whoever, under the guise of the strict observance of some canon, creates disturbances, stirs up seditions, and tears the body of the Church—provided it maintains the orthodoxy of piety—such a man, even if he thinks he is acting out of piety, is unaware (for it shall be said, however burdensome it may be) that he is a wolf coming from without in sheep’s clothing, C but is within full of deceit and rapacity. And do not be indignant at me for listening; for this is not my own speech, but that of two men who have illuminated the whole world by their word and manner of life: I mean Ignatius the Theophoros and John Chrysostom. The former says: "Let such a one be an object of plunder, a wolf working the destruction of the sheep in sheep's hide; whom not even the blood of martyrdom will suffice to cleanse." And Chrysostom testifies that a man who creates a schism in the Church is worse than a heretic; and he does not merely call him worse, but declares with the greatest emphasis that he is much worse. Another holy man says: "Whoever rends D the Church (when it is, of course, orthodox), commits the same crime as those who once pierced the Lord's body with a lance." But when some heresy prevails, then he who opposes it does not introduce a schism into the Church, but rather protects it from schism, as has been aptly noted in the sacred and divine canons. But we must return to where we left off, and the established tenor of our discourse must be continued.
15. Leo the Wise, whom I mentioned earlier—having unjustly driven out Nicholas the Mystic from the throne, because he would not consent to his fourth marriage, and having appointed Euthymius the syncellus as patriarch—when this Leo died, his brother Alexander transferred the imperial authority to himself, deposed Euthymius, and restored Nicholas to his own see.
Both of these men have been accepted by the Church, inasmuch as they were orthodox and had contended for the divine laws; for they say that Euthymius labored much to prevent Emperor Leo from writing and leaving behind a law regarding fourth marriages. And indeed he did prevent it. A Let us now come to those of more recent times. Emperor Manuel Comnenus unjustly removed the holy patriarch Cosmas, surnamed Atticus, from his see and substituted another—a thing which the sacred canons forbid. Yet the Church accepted this man as well, and did not reject those ordained by him. That the aforementioned patriarch Cosmas possessed great confidence toward God is evident from the following: for they say that, in his grief for the Church, which he saw oppressed by the tyranny of its rulers, as he was about to depart his see, he cursed the womb of the Empress so that she would never bear male offspring. Then Cantostephanus, trimming his sails to the time, stood near the mistress and stretched forth his hand to strike the patriarch a blow; but he was prevented by those present. The patriarch, however, turned and said, "Leave him be, for in a short while he will receive his 'Petra';" which is exactly what happened. For after a brief time had passed, Cantostephanus perished in the Corcyraean war, struck by a stone thrown from above by someone on the city wall; by which blow he lost his life in a foul and miserable way, just as the patriarch had predicted. The Empress’s womb also remained void of male fruit after the patriarch’s curse, as we have said. For although a son, Alexius, was born to Manuel, he was not begotten by him but was conceived of Mary the Latin. B
16. What, then, of Isaac Angelus? Did he not, without any just cause or canonical title, depose Camaterus and thrust in Nicetas the sacellarius? Did he not, after the space of one year, remove this man as an imbecile and make Leontius patriarch—whom he also called Marianus—testifying that this man had been shown to him by the Mother of God with a command to depose Nicetas and install Leontius in the see? Did he not afterward depose Leontius, asserting likewise that this had been commanded him by the Mother of God, and transfer Dositheus of Jerusalem to be patriarch of Constantinople? And when the people complained loudly because of this matter, did not Dositheus also fall from the see, and another get substituted? Thus, within the space of nine years—the very amount of time he himself reigned—Isaac established five patriarchs in the city of Byzantium, following no rationale or canonical causes, but merely his own will and whim, casting out one and bringing in another. And yet the Church excluded none of them, nor those who were ordained by them; and—what is more festive, or rather, more shameful—all of these men were living during the reign of Isaac.
perhaps because of the short duration of his reign. And so much for these matters. Yet I add these things as well.
17 A Maximus, the patriarch and confessor of Jerusalem, since he gathered a local synod and received into communion the great Athanasius, who was coming from Antioch and was hastening to reach his own city—having already received in Antioch, from the emperor Constantius, the decree by which he was being deposed from his own throne due to the slanders of Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea in Palestine—was himself also removed from his throne; and he had as his successor, with the support of that same Caesarean, the wonderful Cyril, who had previously been a fervent follower of the Arian heresy. And this is evident not only from many other things, but also from the fact that Maximus, who advocated the *homoousion*, fell from the throne, and Cyril was established as bishop of the holy Zion by the Arians in place of Maximus. The divine Gregory of Nyssa says thus in his B oration on the transferring of the relics of the protomartyr Stephen: "Cyril, after repentance, admitted the term *homoousion*." This man was also present at the second synod, fighting for the correct dogma; and he left behind many very useful writings for the orthodox Church. Now, this Cyril was not only not cast out of the Church for having occupied the throne while the holy Maximus was still alive and in exile for the sake of the correct doctrine, but he was even very highly praised and accepted; for the Church glories in possessing this man, too, in the number of its saints.
18 C But what of Meletius the Great among the confessors? Was he not trusted with the throne of Sebaste, and then Berrhoea in Syria, and finally of great Antioch by the Arians? Was he not an accomplice to them and a fellow-combatant, and did he not hasten to strengthen those things that seemed good to them, by whose favor he was judged worthy to receive this high throne? For certain men of your persuasion once came to me for a discussion, and asserting with as much folly as one could describe, they said that we receive Meletius of Antioch, Germanus the confessor, and Proclus, who was transferred from Cyzicus to the queen of cities, and along with them, to use the expression of Gregory the Theologian, we receive these men with discrimination D and by grace, but not as having truly served as high priests. Does this seem right, then, to all of you? Or do you, as many of you as are more pious in divine matters, despise those who say these things as much as we do? We attribute honor to these saints not by any distinct grace or discrimination, but as genuine champions of the truth, and as those who legitimately served as priests in the Church. But whatever you wish to maintain on this count, decide for yourselves—for the Church of God prides itself everywhere on the aforementioned men as genuine prelates, teachers and defenders of our right faith.
B 19. The divine Chrysostom, moreover, first received the holy laver of regeneration at the sacred hands of Meletius of Antioch, and later the order of the diaconate, and this he did while knowing well that the great Eustathius was struggling in exile amidst very many miseries for the sake of the right faith. Indeed, he honored both with eulogies—Meletius, that is, and Eustathius—rightly despising those who delighted in indecorous brawls and foolish contentions, as well as the appellations devised by men contrary to decorum and duty. For they would call their adversaries Meletians, and these in turn would call them Eustathians. The most learned Basil of holy matters also long ago detested these scandals and pitied those who were suffering; wherefore he wrote thus to the great Athanasius: "The maladies of Antioch require some great physician; for while its vital parts are healthy, its face is being torn." The same man says in another epistle: "I do not ignore Meletius; my Church has been in communion with him, and still uses it, and with the grace of the Lord will use it henceforth." And in another: "If all, setting aside contentions, would cleave to the man of God, Meletius." And in another: "We judge those to be members of the Church who cohere with the man of God, Meletius." And again: "It is necessary for all to join themselves to the man of God, Meletius." But being censured by someone, he defends himself and says: "I know no bishop of Antioch C save Meletius." And by no means did he say this in order to reject Eustathius, but in order to refute and put to shame those who did not accept Meletius; and at the same time because he was for the time being holding and governing the Church, while Eustathius was constrained to remain idle in exile. Perhaps he also wished with these words to inflict pain upon the Arians.
20. This, I say, is something you should at least observe, and you ought not with such inconsideration to repudiate the most holy Joseph, the illustrious leader of our religion and our sacred patriarch. And in another epistle the great Basil, exhorting someone, urges him to set aside the discord of schisms and follow Meletius. But why should I say more? Did not this same great Basil receive the order of the presbyterate from Meletius? Read the Ecclesiastical History of Socrates, and the Life of the great Basil written by Amphilochius of Iconium, so that you may know the truth. It is also written in the Life of Saint Antony: "Antony was admirable in faith and altogether orthodox; D and for this reason...