A Farther ACCOUNT OF THE Baroccian Manuscript, Lately published at Oxford, together with the Canons Omitted in that Edition. In a Letter to his Friend in London. Inquire after the Old Ways. SIR, YOu Surprise me with the Baroccian Manuscript, but much more with the Account of the Credit it has gotten. Its Admirers, I presume, take it to be an excellent Tract upon R. B's word, and fancy (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) Providence was concerned in the discovery and Publication of this piece. I must confess Providence has of late been thought very busy, but I can assure you that Treatise was known in my time, and despised too. The Reasons you will meet with anon, and after a short Examination, I dare be confident you will confess it deserves no better usage. The Editor endeavours to get some Reputation to this piece, by fathering it upon * Pref. p. 1. Niaphorus Callisti, a Man (he says) better skilled in Ecclesiastical History than any of the same Age. Now, Sir, you know this Age was the 13th Century, a time not overstockt with Church Historians of any Credit; and therefore tho' he was the best of that Age, yet the Censures of other Critics * vid Beram Not. ad Act. Apost. C. 1. v. 13. & Casabonum Exercit. 1. Sect. 17. may be just, who say he was an idle Story-teller, of little Judgement but much Superstition. But not to quarrel about Niaphorus, let us look upon the reasons why the Editor fancies him to be the Author of this Treatise. 1st. He says this Piece is found in a Book mark● CXLII amongst the * Pref. p. 1. Baroccian MSS in that Bodleian Library at Oxford, in which Book there are some Historical Treatises, and particularly a Catalogue of the Patriarches of Constantinople under Niaphorus' name. This is all true, but the Editor should have observed that that Book is a bundle of several Treatises of several Authors, and particularly that this Tract is written in a different hand from those to which the name of Niaphorus is affixed. So that from the Book itself there is not the least reason to conjecture that Niaphorus compiled this piece. He further saith that Niaphorus must be the Author, because the Compiler may be supposed to live within the Patriarcha of Constantinople, and about the time Niaphorus flourished. There, he says, are no light conjectures. And indeed Niaphorus Pref. p. 1. is much obliged to him for giving him a title to all the nameless follies of that Age. But if the Editor would have shown himself a true Critic, he would have compared the matter and stile of this Treatise with Niaphorus' History; and then he would have found that Niaphorus had a better Pen, more Judgement and Sincerity than this Collector. At least he would have considered that a Favourite of an Emperor, who mortally hated the Latins, would not have used the Authority of the Bishops of Rome, when he might have ●●d. p. 8. 9 & 10. of the Latin & G. ●diti●on. met with as great Examples in his own Church: The best account I can give of the Manuscript is this. The Compiler of it seems to be a Latinized Greek, and at the time when he wrote it he was a kind of a Tutor, and this piece was a reading to his Boys, so injudiciously composed, and in so mean a stile, that nothing but the Barbarity of the Age, and the meanness of the Auditory can make any tolerable excuse for it. To think it a Homily, and pronounced in a Council of Bishops (as the Editor seems willing to opine) is to libel a Century; for how can a Man disgrace an Pref. p. 2. Age more than by supposing the Bishops, the Men of Wisdom and Authority in it could patiently sit out such an indigested crude tale? Had it still lain amongst the Boys, it had been in its proper place; but to bring it out to Men, and triumph in the Discovery, shows only that some do not know what Manuscripts are worth printing. With this Character I should leave the Author, but R. B. deserves a little more respect; and therefore, pray tell him when you see him next, that the Oxford Copy of this Treatise is not the only Copy in the world; Cotelirius had one of the same vid. Coteleri. Not. in 3d Tom. Men. Grac. p. 645. compared with p. 25. lin. 14. of the G. & L. Edition. piece, and had that great Man lived a little longer, it would have been published, and no doubt with the Canons at the end of it (the Reason why these were left out in this Edition you will meet with in the Close of this Paper) and then Providence had not reserved it for Mr. Hody's version, nor R▪ B's preface. However the Church of England is now on fire, and the Nethenim is ready with his Buckets and Ladders to Pref. p. 3. put it out. The first affront is to give the deprived Bishops adiuce out of St. Clemens, and persuade them to Pref. p. 8. resign. (There would not be much need of this if the People were already free.) 'Tis true, St. Clemens not only advises the injured Presbyters Sect. 54. Edit. Oxon. at Corinth, but tells them it was their real interest to withdraw; but then this Council comes after a very severe Lecture to the People for their disobedience. He tells them (Sect. 1.) their defection was impious, and detestable fomented by bold impudent Men, and a great Scandal to Religion. He admonisheth them to right their injured Ministers, and tells them they had been diligent in their Office, and were great Ornaments of the Church. (Sect. 44.) he adds that they lay under a great Sin. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. (Sect. 44.) Nor is that venerable Father less Zealous in his Address to the People to adhere, (even after he had given this advice to the Presbyters, Sect. 57) than to the Presbyters to recede from an obstinate Generation. Yet I shall freely own the direction is excellent; and who would more freely follow it then the ptesent Bishops, were the case of the Church of England like that of Corinth? But let us suppose that by such a recess the Laws of the Empire had been violated, the Doctrines of the Church, for which they had suffered Persecution, the mockings of the worldly, and the railing of the Proud, exposed; and that Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction which Christ settled on the Apostles, and they delivered to their Successors, betrayed; and then would St. Clemens have advised them to withdraw? Any man may answer that he was St. Paul's companion, and therefore doubtless of his opinion who would not give place to Intruders ('tis the Editor's word) so much as for one hour, Gal. 2. v. 5. The next advice comes from St. Austin and almost three hundred African Bishops, who offered to resign Pref. p. 6. their Bishoprics to preserve the Unity of the Church: and no doubt they had made a very good purchase. But is there no way, to preserve the Unity of the Church but the Resignation of the Injured? Will not their Restoration do as well? and would it not be a more Christian application to address the Intruders to make reparation, and do right to God and Man at once? the Injured may withdraw, but the Injurious I am sure, are bound to do it by greater and stronger obligations, than those that come from African, however venerable Examples. But here, Sir, I must beg leave to expostulate a little, and desire to know what grievous offence I committed, that I must be enjoined the ungrateful penance of examining a piece, in which I can meet with nothing but confidence, disingenuity and shuffle. For I have reason to believe the Editor never looked into St. Austin, nor the Conference at Carthage which he quotes; had he seen the Books, he would not have given Marcellinus another title then that he meets with in them: Marcellinus is called Tribunus Notarius and Cognitor, but Passim in Coll. Ca●t●ag. tom. 2. Counc. and in Brericulo ejusdem Coll. inter op. August. tom. 7. never Vicegerens, and the Emperors Honorius and Theodosius constitute him only Moderator of the Assembly with power to give sentence after a full hearing of the Catholic Bishops, and the party of Donatus, Cui quidem Disputationi principe loco te vid Council. tom. 2. p. 1346. judicem volumus residere. Nor had it been possible for a Man of so much Zeal for Unity, as the Editor pretends, to have mangled the Catholic Bishop's Letter to Marcellinus, or given another state of the matter then what St. Austin had drawn up. The whole Letter is too long to be transcribed, & therefore you must content yourself with that venerable Father's abstract of it. In jisdem literis etiam Breviculum Coll. Carthag. primae diei Sect. 5. inter Op. August. tom. 7. se obstrinxerunt Catholici & polliciti sunt, si in parte Donati veritas eis demonstraretur Ecclesiae, non se illic Episcopalem Honorem quaesituros; sed consilium eorum secuturos pro salute Christianâ: fi autem in sua Communione potius veritas estanderetur Ecclesiae, Honours Episcopales eis se non negaturos: & hoc a se fieri bono pacis, ut intelligerent Hi quibus hoc praestaretur in iis Catholici non Christianam Consecrationem, sed humanum ditestarentur err●rem. Quod si Plebes duos in una Ecclesia Episcopos ferre non possent, Vtrisq de medio recedentibus singuli, constituerentur Episcopi, abijs Episcopis ordinandi qui in suis Plebibus singuli invenirentur. The catholic Bishops did not offer to resign, ●ut upon condition the party of Donatus would do so too: And therefore the Edi●or before he made use of this Example, ●ould have gotten a Commission to propose it. The next is drawn from the behaviour of Gregory the Divine, but this ●ref. p. 17. Story told right, will show him ●o be no very passing Example in this case. Gregory was Bishop of Nazianzum, * At least a Coadjutor to his Father. ●id vales●● Not. ad ●5. Cap 7. Socratis. and thence translated to Constantinople; Many ‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. So●rates H●st. Eccles. ●5, 6, 7. ved etiam ●●om. C. 6. l. 7. murmured at this promotion, and indeed Translations were not then thought as Innocent as they are now. The great Eusebius of Caesarea had not very long before refused the Throne of Antioch, when offered to him: He pleaded, that he could not leave his old Charge without breaking the Apostolical Canons, vid. Euseb. de vita Constantini l. 3. C. 59, 60, 61, 62. & violating his first Faith. His excuse was accepted, and the Honesty of it very much commended by Constantine the Great, who loved him very well, and desired his promotion. Eusebius of Nicomedia is censured as a Breaker of the Th●odorit. Eccles. Hist. ●. ●. C. 9 Ecclesiastical Constitution for leaving his own See, and stepping into the Throne of Constantinople. And Theodorit in the second Book of his Ecclesiastical History, Cap. 31. tells us the Arrians were the chief promoters of Translations; and bitterly reproaches them for transferring Bishops from one City to another. His case standing thus, and his Interest at Court being little, Gregory did not think vid. vitam Greg. ●●●● p. 27. it worth while to struggle for a Seat, in which he found he should be briskly opposed, and poorly defended: and therefore he resigned. Nectarius an Honourable person, and Socrat. Hist. Eccles. l. 5. C. 8. a Man of great worth was chosen in his room, with him Gregory communicates; and why should he not since he had resigned? He writes to him, and gives him honourable titles, and is this so wonderful a Condescension in Gregory when Nectarius was a greater Bishop, and a Man Superior to Himself? Nectarius had done Gregory no injury, he neither sought his Throne, nor accepted it till duly vacant by his Resignation: why then should Gregory be angry? But some Men have reason to wonder at others who are civil and do their duty. The last is drawn from that Council which Dionysius of Alexandria gives Novatian to forgo his pretence to the Roman Chair: Pref. p. 8. And this I must confess is very judiciously applied. For Novatian unless my Eusebius very vid. Euseb. Hifl. Eccl. l. 6. C. 43, & 45. much deceives me, was the Intruder, and stepped into the Roman Throne before Cornelius the rightful Bishop was willing to go out of it. I had almost forgot St Chrysostom, and it had been well for the Editor if I had. He seems to be in love PrSf. p. 4. with the Story, and flourishes more upon it, than upon any of the Rest. But he has not considered that St Chrysostom never offered to vid. the Case of Chrysostom in the Treatise. resign. That great Man knew well enough his Enemy's sought his Life, they had accused him of Treason, and he expected to lose, his Head publicly, or to be murdered privately by those who were to carry him into Banishment; and therefore expecting Death, he desires his Brethren the Bishops, to communicate with his Orthodox Successor, and enjoins the Widows to submit. Observe his own words. I have fought a good Fight, my end is nigh, and my Race is finished. But to the last moment of his Life he never sat quiet under that unjust Sentence which deposed him. Many Bishops stook close to him, the Widows, Virgins, and People of Constantinople could not be forced by Fines, Whip, and Imprisonments, to forsake him, and communicate with the other party, And he himself made Applications to the Bishops of Rome, Milan, and Aquileia to stand his Friends, and to restore him to his Throne: If this be an Example of Submission, let the Editor apply it, and try whether it will not fit the stiffest of the present Age. You must forgive me, if I do not take much notice of the Description of a Schismatic, which the Editor gives out of Irenaeus: 'tis too rude in the Application. Can any of the Dethroned Pref. p. 9 Bishops be supposed to have an eye upon Vtilitatum & Res Medicas, Wealth and Prosit? Take a view of them in the Tower, and there you will find them exposing not only their Estates but Lives too for the good of the Church. I should here leave the Editor, and proceed to the Treatise, but that you think it necessary to pay Counsel with Advice, and therefore I must beg the Editor, whensoever he ventures to write again, to use Civil and respectful Expressi●ns when he speaks of his Superiors, Bishops by title and by merit; and to remember that the Nethenims were never permitted to bring rott●n wood, or dirty water into the Sanctuary. Not to make Speeches for St Chrysostom, or any Orator of his rank, and not to consult references and quotations shown him by his Friends, but to read Books, and compare the several passages in them, and then I am sure we shall hear less of his Examples. The Pamphlet pretends, that the Church never troubled herself about the Promotion of a Bishop, Answer to the M. S nor his Right to the Throne he filled; but communicated with him who was in possession of the See (provided he was Orthodox) though another had been violently and unjustly thrust out of it; and had not resigned his right to the Seat, and was still alive: This practice it doth not attempt to justify, by any Principles drawn from Scripture, the Ancient Canons or Customs of the Church; nor the Writings of the three first Ages, but only citys some few examples from the third to the thirteenth Century, and then concludes as triumphantly, as if it had given the fullest demonstration in the world. Now, Sir, you know this bare telling of Stories is the meanest way of arguing, the work of memory only, and to be managed without thought; 'tis likewise of very little force, because we ought to be privy to all the Circumstances, and certain of the Integrity of the Man, whose Practice is brought to justify it self: We should be sure that neither fear, nor Interest, nor any other motive swayed him in the least, and that he was well informed, duly considered, and did not act upon mistake. Now all this is not easily discovered, nor are the Best and wisest Men always in the right, nor Sincere all over. No action is good, imitable, or just ●arely because done by such or such a Man; We must walk by Rule and not Example. Nor can you, I am sure, be insensible that this Treatise will justify the proceedings of an unjust viol●nt deposing Prince, as well as those of a complying communicating Clergy, because several of the Emperors which it mentions were better and wiser Men than many of the Bishops. And if Examples when truly reported have so little force, what must those have that are partly feigned, unfaithfully related, and will not reach the case for which they are produced? 'tis certain they can have no influence on the cause, but then they turn with a vengeance on the Collector of them, and sufficiently prove very lamentable defects in his judgement, or something worse. The Pamphlet in its title excepts the case of St Chrysostom as not favourable pag. 2. to his design, and yet begins with an account of that Excellent Bishop. It says Chrysostom (as well as St Basil) was ordained Deacon by Meletius, who had formerly been made Bishop of Sebastia by the Arrians, and was afterward translated to the Throne of Antioch by the Suffrages both of the Arrians and Orthodox. Eustathius the old Bishop of Antioch, pag. 5. being then in Exile and alive. It adds that this Meletius thus ordained, and thus seated in the Throne of Antioch, was, because he was Orthodox, accepted by, and proved very beneficial to the Church. 'Tis true, Chrysostom was ordained Deacon by Meletius, and Meletius made Bishop of Sebastia by such as were Arrians in their hearts, but not public abetters of that Heresy. They were Hypocrites indeed, and under the specious pretence of reconciling differences, and making up the breaches of the Church, advanced the project of a naked Gospel; such as Melitius, who was always Orthodox himself, did not suspect to be unsound in the Faith; and such as at that time were not separated from the Communion of the Church; and therefore Melitius had no reason to refuse their ordination; and the Eustathians were too peevish to question it afterward, and justly accounted guilty of the Schism that divided the Church of Antioch. But that Eustathius (which is the main point) was alive when Meletius came to the See of Antioch, is false, as appears from Theodorit. Hist. Eccles. l. 3 C. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The Editor to support his Author, citys Socrates. l. 4. c. 14, and 15. and pag. 4. Sozomen l. 6. c. 13. who say Eustathius was recalled from Banishment by the Emperor Jovian, and sent again into Exile by Valens, and therefore was alive when Meletius was put into the Throne of Antioch in the time of Constantius. He professeth likewise that he cannot agree with Baronius and Valesius (no mean, nor unthinking Men) who take Socrates and Sozomen to be mistaken in the Story. I must confess that Eustathius (as the Editor observes against Valesius (might have lived to the third pag. 4. Consulship of Valentinian and Valens, for than he had not been above ninety years of age; and therefore the Story of Socrates and Sozomen is not to be rejected on that Account. But is this the Argument of Baronius, or doth Valesius produce no other? Had he looked into the Annals, An. 370. he would have found that Baronius thought it absurd to imagine that the Oxthodox Bishops, and Catholic People of Antioch would have suffered Meletius or Paulinus to have sat in that Chair, had Eustathius been alive: that 'tis incredible he should not repair to Antioch, and appear in the Catholic Synod at that time; and folly to fancy 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 vid. Not. ad l. 4. c. 14. & 15. Hist. Eccles. Socratis. St Jerom that Eustathius of Antio h was buried at Trajanople in Thrace, to which place he was banished by Constantius (it should be Constantine) and therefore vid. Caves Hist. Lit. could not be that Eustathius who was banished by Valens to Bizua in Thrace. But these are Arguments not very favourable to the Eduo 's designs, and therefore must be shuffled over, and concealed: So that we have a full Testimony of Theodorit, who wrote his History to supply the Defects, and vid. Vales●. pref. ad Hist. Theodorit. correct the mistakes of Socrates and Sozomen, and the Authority of St Jerom against a senseless surmise of one single Socrates, (for Sozomen transcribes him) vid. Vales. pref. ad Hist. Socratis and Sozomen. who was neither so accurate nor judicious as either of the other two. But to put this matter out of all doubt, I shall only desire it may be observed that the Orthodox never chose a Bishop in the room of one who was thrust out of his Throne, whilst he was alive, and therefore it cannot be supposed that the Orthodox of Antioch would have given their votes for Meletius, had Eustathius been in being; and consequently it must be concluded that Theodorit is in the right, because his account agrees with the Practice of the Church. For the first thre● hundred years Dius and Germanius were the only Men who sat in another's Throne, but then Narcissus being under some disgrace, had voluntarily vid. Euseb. lib. 6. cap. 9 and 10. with-drawn from Jerusalem, and no body knew where he was. The Flock was forsaken before they had provided for themselves. When the Bishops were martyred, new ones were quickly chosen in their room, but when they were banished, or forced to fly, their Chairs were thought to be still full: And Dionysius the famous Bishop of Alexandria, who was banished from his City, gives a very good reason for these different proceedings of the Christians in his time, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. vid. Euseb. lib. 7. C. XI. And St Hilary in the next Age could tell Constantius, Episcopos ego sum licet in exilio permanens, & Ecclesiae adhuc per Hil. Liber. ad Constantinum. Presbyteros meos Communionem distribuens. An unjust deprivation did not take away their right, though driven from their Church, they kept their Character, and were Bishops still: The Churches of those Ages knew as well as St Chrysostom that it was necessary for them to be under Bishops, Pref. p. 5. but they never thought their obligations to their Pastors were canceled, when they were deposed by the Edict of an Emperor, and forced to be absent from their Charge. To confirm these Assertions you may command a great many Instances from the Churches of France, Italy, Asia, Egypt, and the like, at present I shall only send you one from Rome. Liberius was banished by Constantius for refusing to consent to Athanasius' deposition, and a perjured party vid. pref. ad Libellum p●●●um ●austini & ●a●cellini. of the Roman Clergy, put one Felix in his Room, who was Orthodox himself, but being a Latitudinaian Reconciler, vid. Socrat. lib 2. c. 37. & Soz●●. l. 4. c. 11. Theodorit. l. 2. c. 17. and a Trimmer in his practice communicated with the Arri●●s: The sober▪ pious Catholics of Rome withdrew from his Communion; and made application to Constantiu●, for their restoration of their old Bishop: partly indeed because Felix communicated with the Arrians, but chiefly because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there Theodorit. lib. 2. c. 17. was but one God, one Christ, and one Bishop. The Pamphlet pretends farther that the Ordinations of Arsacius (who upon the unjust deposition of St pag. 5. Chrys●s●om, was put into the Throne of Consta●tinople) were never questioned, and yet owns that we are not certain he made any. And then adds that Atticus, who succeeded Arsacius in that See, whilst Chrysostom was in Exile and alive, was owned and accepted by the Church, and commended by Pope pag. 6. Celestine: that Sisinnius the Successor of Atticus was consecrated by those whom Atticus ordained, that the third general Council of Ephesus took no pag. 6. notice of any of these proceedings, and in the following paragraph goes on to show that Maximiniam and Proclus the succeeding Bishops of Constantinople pag. 9 derived their ordination from the same hands; that St Cyril communicated with them, and that Innocent of Rome did not prosecute Severianus of Gabala nor Acacius of Berraea, though he knew them to be the chief contrivers of all these Injuries, which St Chrysostom suffered. Here is a great deal of History, but to what purpose? our question is not whether the Ordinations of Intruders are good and valid (even those of Schismatics and He●●●●cks have been frequently admitted) 〈◊〉 whether the Church might not own 〈…〉 after the death of the injured 〈…〉 whether every Bishop is bound to prosecute those who have done Injury● to others: But whether the Church has received, and communicated with such as have stepped into other men's Seats whilst they were alive, and had not resigned their right. To this point the Author should have spoken, he should have shown that Arsacius or Atticus was received and owned by the Church whilst Chrysostom was in Exile; but since that could not be done, as will appear from the following Abstract taken out of the Life of St Chrysostom, written by Palladius, the Question was to be changed, and the dispute shussled. St Chrysostom, Bishop of Constantinople, was a man of a severe temper (p. 45.) vehemently against the Vices of the great, and therefore not very acceptable at Court (p. 35.) Theophilus of Alexandria a bold insinuating fellow, having some disgust to him (p. 44.) undertakes the quarrel of the Court, proceeds against all Rules and Canons, gathers a packed Synod, condemns and deprives Chrysostom without hearing his defence (p. 74.) when Chrysostom was summoned by the Emperor to appear before Theophilus, he had forty Bishops with him, of which number seven were Metropolitans (p. 67. and 69.) and to these he spoke words, which the Editor has quoted in his Preface. He charges them not to leave their Churches, but communicate with his Orthodox Successor, for He expected death (p. 67.) it being the public report that He should lose his Head. (p. 68) After this deprivation he was restored, and kept his Seat some time; till Theophilus' party grew strong, and condemned him again; and to put this Sentence in Execution, Theophilus gets a Warrant from Court, sends the Sheriff (p. 19 and 75.) with his Pass to drive him out of his Palace and Church too. And (p. 26.) engages the Emperor to deprive and confiscate the Estates of all those Bishops who should refuse to communicate with Arsacius, who was put into the Chair of St John, and to seize upon the House of any Man who harboured any Priest that communicated with John. The Honourable Deaconsses of Constantinople were Fined, the Virgins whipped, and the Monks tortured, yet still Arsacius was refused. Arsacius living but fourteen months, Atticus succeeds him, (p. 94.) with whom none of the Bishops, nor the People of Constantinople would communicate (pag. 95.) He procures Edicts to force them, (p. 95.) some were prevailed on by Benefices and Bribes, but abundance of Rich and Noble Persons fled (p. 95.) many Bishops suffered deprivation (p. 194.) and notwithstanding the severe Laws, more of the People of Constantinople separated from Atticus than joined with him (p. 96. and 149.) In the mean time St John makes application to the Bishops of the West, to Innocent of Rome (p. 10.) Chromatius of Aquilea and Venerius of Milan (p. 22, and 23.) desiring them to interpose and do him right. Many Bishops and Presbyters made the same addresses for St John (p. 28.) Innocent offers to communicate with Theophilus and Chrysostom till the cause should be determined (p. 23.) but Theophilus declining a review of his proceedings, Innocent by the advice of an Italian Synod, requests the Emperor Honorius to write to his Brother Arcadius to summon a Council, that it might be known with whom they should communicate (p. 30.) The five Bishops who carried the Emperor's Letters, refused to communicate with Atticus (p. 33.) Palladius glories in his refusal (p. 214.) and tells us, p. 214. that a Western Synod had determined not to communicate with the Intruders, nor with those who joined with them. 'Tis needless to comment upon this History, for when the deliberate determinations of whole Churches, the resolutions of Chrysostom, and the best Men of the Age are on one side; and the violence only and fury of a desperate faction on the other, 'tis easy to determine which ought to be preferred The next Instance is less to the purpose, but as unfaithfully reported as the former. It says Dioscorus of Alexandria openly favouring Eutyches pag. 10. his Heresy, condemned, disposed, and murdered Flavian the Orthodox Bishop of Constantinople, and ordained Anatolius in his Room, yet the fourth general Council did not depose Anatolius, nor censure Juvenal of Jerusalem, nor the rest who joined with Dioscorus in deposing Flavian. But did not the Council of Chalcedon call Juvenal of Jerusalem, Basil of Selucia and the Rest to an Account for their proceedings against Flavian? And did not they plead for their Baronius An. 449. excuse that Dioscorus had put a guard upon them, that they were beaten by the Soldiers, and almost famished: that they were under the greatest Terror, Swords being at their Throats, and Chains brought into the Room, and that they subscribed his deposition against Their Conscience and out of fear? That they heartily repented for what they had done, and begged pardon both of God and Man? If any one denys this, the Acts of the Council at Chalcedon Council tom. 4. p. 111. will sufficiently confute him, and Evagrius will Evagri. Hist. Eccles. l. 2. c. 4. and Baronius An. 451. prove that a sentence of deposition was drawn against them all, and that their Restoration was looked upon as a kindness and favour from Pope Leo. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. As for Anatolius himself, the Council had no reason to deprive Him, for those that ordained him were not declared Heretics, nor separated from the Church; He was Orthodox himself, and put into the Throne of Constantinople before the death of Flavianus: for Flavianus was Baronius tom. 6. p. 100 murdered not long (Niaphorus says within a few days) after his deposition, and the Niaphorus l. 14. c. 47. Pamphlet itself says Dioscorus was a Murderer before he ordained pag. 10. Anatolius. Leo received Him when he found Baronius An. 451. him Orthodox, and never quarrelled at this ordination of Anatolius * Baronius An. 452. compared with Leo's Epistles to Anatolius, Martian & Pulcheria in the 4th Tome of the Councils, p. 843. 846. and 848. till he began to dispute with Him about the Privileges of our See. The Pamphlet goes on to the Reign of Anastasius, and says the Empecor deprived three pa. 13. An. 495. Patriarches, Euphemius, Macedonius, and Timotheus, because they would not Subscribe his Heretical Opinions. These three did not refuse one another's Communion; and Elias of Jerusalem did communicate with all three. [This was the Emperor's accusation, tho' false.] Now this Story should run thus, ‖ Theodorus Lect●r p. 559. Metaphrastes, Theophanes, and Cedrenus and others call him Euthymius, and therefore all Historians do not call him Euphemius, as the Editor asserts, p. 13. vid. Cotelerii. Not. ad 3. tom. Mon. Graec. p. 599. Euphemius betrayed the secrets of the Emperor, and kept correspondence with his Enemy's. The Emperor calls a Synod, and Euphemius was deposed, so that he was not thrust out by the Emperor, but regurlarly displaced. Yet the People of Constantinople raised tumults, and could scarce be persuaded to forsake him; Macedonius succeeds him, with whom Euphemius did not so well agree as the Pamphlet pretends; Euphemius indeed made use of him upon a civil occasion, and by his means procured a safe conduct from the Emperor; but when they were to meet, Macedonius put off his Theodorus Lector, p. 560. and Not. Vales●i. in locum. Patriarchal Badge, otherwise probably Euphemius would have refused even that Civil kindness at his Hands. Some time after Anastasius A. D. 510. expelled Macedonius if we believe Liberatus, for falsifying the Scriptures and being a Lib. Diac. Breviar. Council tom. 5. l. 19 Nestorian, but as the common and true Story goes for refusing to condemn the Council of Chalcedon: Timotheus succeeds Him, a Man very infamous and Heretical, and therefore it cannot Theodorus Lector, p. 563, and 564. be thought Macedonius would communicate with Him, since so many of Constantinople suffered for refusing his Baronius An. 510, 511. Communion, and rebelled Marcellini Chronicon. against the Emperor who would force them to it. This Timotheus was not expelled by Anastasius, as the Pamphlet pretends: He died in his Throne, and was succeeded by John. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Cyril. Schythop. vit. Sabae. p. 320. p. 296, and 297. Indeed Elias of Jerusalem is said to have accepted Synodical Epistles both from Macedonius and Timothy, and I believe he did from Macedonius, but Cyril's legend's too weak an Authority to persuade any Man that he entertained any correspondence with the infamous and Heretical Timotheus: He was to make all the friends he could to put a stop to prevailing Heresy, and 'tis no wonder if to secure the Faith of the Church, Crimes of lesser moment were overlookt. The same Anastasius, says the Pamphlet, expelled Elias of Jerusalem, and put John into his Throne, yet pag. 14. Elias did not withdraw from his Communion, and Theodorus and Sabas, the mighty Monks of that time, communicated with Elias, and John too; and the names of Elias and John were both put into the Diptyches of Jerusalem: and for all this it quotes the Life of Sabas written by Cyril of Scythopolis. Now the legend of Cyril runs thus: Elias was driven from Jerusalem by force, and John who had promised to Anathematise the Council of Chalcedon was put into his Room: (p. 310.) John being persuaded by Sabas breaks his promise, and the Emperor sends the Governor of Palestine to force John to keep his word, or leave his Throne. He seizeth John and puts him into Prison, and all the People of Jerusalem reject 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: (p. 311.) John again gives his word to do at he had promised, but in the mean time gathers 10000 Monks about him (p. 312.) and getting into the Pulpit with Theodorus and Sabas, the Ringleaders of those Monks, anathematised all those who did not receive the Council of Chalcedon, and confirmed that Synod (p. 312.) The Governor was forced to fly for his Life, and Hypatius, the Emperor's Nephew, was glad to purchase his with many Oaths, and a round sum of Money. The Emperor resenting this affront, resolved to banish John and Theodosius, and Sabas: but the Monks got together again; wrote a remonstrance to the Emperor, in which they call John 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (p. 319.) and boldly tell Him they would sooner lose their Lives, and burn their Churches, than suffer his Heresy to be set up in them. Thus this matter ended. And sure Men must be at a strange loss who would take Examples from such wretched irregular proceedings. For the next instance the Pamphlet sends us to the Life of Athanasius, pag. 14. and says we may read there how Acacius unjustly deprived Maximus Bishop of Jerusalem, and put Cyril in his Room, one who was then chief of the Arrian party, but afterward becoming Orthodox he was willingly received, and allowed as Patriarch by the Church: and Maximus himself did not withdraw from his Communion; whereas all that I can find about Maximus vid. Vit. Athanasij. p. 48. and Cyril in that Treatise are these words. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Acacius threw out Maximus, and established Cyril, who was Zealous for Heresy, as Maximus for true Faith. Not one word of Maximus' communicating with Cyril, nor can it be supposed so glorious a Confessor as Maximus would have any thing to do with one of such a Character. Besides, Sir, this whole story depends on the single Authority of Socrates, who says Acacius and Patrophilus having driven Maximus out of his Throne put Cyril in his Room. But Theodorit is positive that Cyril succeeded upon the death of Maximus: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And the Councils at Constantinople Synodical Epistle says Cyril was canonically ordained: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Theodorit Eccles. Hist. l. 5. c. 9 Yet after all this I must refer you to Baronius, where you will find the succession in the Throne of Tom. 3. p. 658. Jerusalem to be very confused, St Jerom says four Cyrils succeeded one another, Epiphanius says two, but both affirm Maximus was dead before any took the Chair: so that the Pamphlet, besides its dishonesty in quoting the Life of Athanasius, for what is not there, and its heedlessness in following Socrates against better Authors, is guilty of a most Scandalous blunder, in confounding the Cyrils, and making the little Arian Cyril the same with him who was called the Holy and the Great. The following Stories about Anthymus, and the four Monothelite p. 17. An. D. 552. Patriarches are nothing to the purpose; but that concerning Eutychius (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not ex Amasia oriundus as the Editor imagines. Evagrius only says, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Monachus Amasiae, and vid. Evag. l. 4. c. 38. Noris Dissert. de quinta Synodo p. 51.) would come up to the point, if it were true. To make short work I shall grant part of the story, and suppose Eutychius to have been a good Man, and unjustly expelled. (The learned Dr Crackanthorp endeavours to vindicate Justinian, and prove Eutychius a O● the 5 th' Synod, p. 340. Heretic, and in the time of Justinian infected with those idle whimsies which he afterwards professed;) but of his uneasiness under his sentence we shall find a considerable proof in the legend of Eustathius: for after John was set in the Throne, when Eutychius was summoned to the Conventicle gathered at Constantinople on purpose to depose him, he cried out, Patriarcha ego sum De gratia, nec a Me quisquam Eustathio Baronius tom. 7. p. 534. and p. 615. Hominum tollet hanc Dignitatem: Quis est ille qu●m meo in loco collocastis? And where doth it appear he communicated with John? Indeed 'tis certain he did not, for John; as he was a vain ambitious Man, a servile Flatterer of the great, and Baronius tom. 7. p. 534. greedy of Preferment, so undoubtedly he subscribed to those wild Opinions, which Justinian propagated with so much Zeal, and for opposing which ●t is said Eutychius lost his Throne. And Justinian was so sensible of Niaphorus Hist. Eccles. l. 17. c 29. and 30. the Injury he had done him, and of his right to the Chair of Constantinople, that as one affirms, upon his death Niaphorus Hist. Eccles. l. 17. c. 30. Bed he ordered his Successor Justin to restore him, which was presently done; for Niaphorus Patriarch of Constantinople, vid. Crackanthorp of the first Synod. p. 340. says John sat but two Years; and Paulus Diaconus says Eutychius crowned justin. John died in very convenient Hist. Mix. l. 16. p. 29. time, just as Eutychius was to be restored, or else perhaps he might have been an Example on the other side, and we should have met with a Patriarch dethroned as an Intruder. I know other Historians put off John's death, and Eutychius' Restoration to the 9th or 10th year of Justin, but they are Men of little credit, and Of the fifth Synod p. 340. Crackanthorp has confuted them already. Now we are fallen into the dregs of time, years of Superstition, Idolatry, Dotage, and Disorder; And therefore tho' the Instances produced out of this Age were truly reported, and pertinent to the Purpose, they would be fit Examples for us to follow. But the Collector is still the same Man, and trifles, and falsifies in these as much as in the former. Callinicus assisted Leontius, & encouraged the People to dethrone Justinian, p. 18. A. D. 703. cut off his Nose and banish him: He appeared at the Convention summoned Platina vit. S●rgil. primi. by Leontius, and urged them on to their loyal and Religious work, by telling them this was the Day the Pauli Diaconi. Hist. Miscel. l. 19 c. 30. Lord bade made. Justinian recovering his Throne again, used Callinicus as he did the other Rebels, put out his Eyes, and banished him, and Pauli Diaconi. Hist. Miscel. l. 20. c. 9 placed Cyrus in his Room. The Collector says Callinicius did not refuse to communicate with Cyrus; but that is more than he knows; the Histories speak nothing of the matter. Callinicus might refuse, and no body take notice of it; for who would regard the Actions of a poor blind Creature, without worth, and without friends, and who was sent to Rome to beg his Bread of a proud haughty Baronius A. D. 703. Pope, whom he had very much offended. John the next deposed Patriarch was a Heretic, (as the Editor himself vid. Baronium. An. 712. pag. 18. seems willing to grant upon the Authority of Zonaras and Nicephorus Callisti) and ●ermanus was not deposed An. D. 730. vid. Paul. Diacon. Miscall. Hist. l. 21. c. 26. by Leo Isaurus, but resigned his Bishopric. I know Damascen, Constantine, the Eastern Synodical Epistle to Theaphilus, and others, say he was deposed; but those passionate vid. Spanhem. Hist. Imag. Sect. 2. num. 12. Doters upon Images deserve little credit when they plead their own Cause, and declaim against those Emperors who threw down Images, and would not let them be Idolaters. God has given them over to believe a Lie, and the Men of that party are as insincere Writers, as the Author I am now considering. But suppose Germanus was deposed, is not Idolatry a sufficient Cause for Deposition? And is not a worshipper of Images justly Banished from the Church? The following long Story about Tarasius and others, is altogether impertinent: for what if Tarasius for fear of losing his pag. 21. pretty Pictures, did not do his duty, and Excommunicate Joseph for his villainous compliance with the Emperor Corstantine? What though Theodorus refused to communicate with Tarasius whilst he kept Joseph in the Church? What though Irene (that admirable Empress) looked upon Theodorus to be in honest blunt Man, and Tarasius to be a Courtier? What though upon Joseph's deprivation, Theodorus & Tarasius were reconciled? And what though Nicephorus the succeeding Patriarch at the instance of the Emperor recelved Joseph again, and Theodorus with drew again, and those two were again reconciled upon Joseph's second deprivation? What though Theodorus retracted all the Reproaches he had thrown out against Tarasius and Nicephorus? What though the Monks of Studium were condemned by Methodius for persisting in their separation; and some body says, that Theodorus did not well in separating from Tarasius and Nic●phorus, and that afterwards he corrected himself, and made amends for his unjustifiable proceedings? What I say (suppose the whole Story true) doth all this prove? Doth it show, that a Bishop unjustly deprived, communicates with his Orthodox Successor? There is not one word of any one's deprivation, but Joseph's; and he was neither a Bishop, nor unjustly punished. And yet the Collector has the Confidence to say (p. 30.) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. This is the scope and design of the Histories here produced, to show that not one of all those Patriarches that were Unjustly and Vncanonically thrust out of their proper Sees, did ever withdraw himself from the Communion of his Successor, or persuade the People to separate from the Church, but that both they and their People continued in Communion, provided their Successors were Orthodox. Of the next Story I am willing to believe as much as I can find true. An. D. 861. I will allow Ignatius was thrown out of his Seat by Michael, for reproving and Excommunicating the Incestous vid. Baronium An. 861. N. 28. and 31. Bardas', as Ignatius himself relates the Story to Pope Nicholas. I will likewise grant that Ignatius was restored and Photius deprived (there an Intruder is turned out) and that Photius replaced in the Throne after Ignatius was dead: But that Photius was looked upon to be an Adulterer. and Usurper of the Throne (which this Collector questions,) and that pag. 29. ● Ignatius refused to communicate with him (which he denys,) is very evident pag. 30. ● from the best Records of that Age: Ignatius in the account of his Case which he sent to Pope Nicholas, calls Photius, Adulterer and Intruder, Adulterum & Intrusum Photium. Baronius A. D. 861. N. 311. and An. 886. N. 23. He declined the sentence of the Pope's Legates, because they did not reject, but eat with and received Presents from that Adulterer Photius. And (not to trouble yo● with a thousand other Records) Pope Nicholas by himself, and in conjunction with the Roman Synod, resuses his Communion, and deposes him too, because he had been ordained by Gregory of Syracuse. an excommunicated Bishop; usurped fewer Right, and got into the Throne of Constantinople whilst Ignatius was alive: Vivente ac Superstite Consacerdote Baronius An. D. 862. Num. 5. Ignatlo, sedent ejus invasit, & Sponsam, violentus rapax & Sceleratus Adulter. Baronius A. 859. N. 57, and 59 Several Bishops and others stuck to Ignatius, and would not communicate with Photius; and Ignatius was so far from communicating with him, that he lay very hard upon all that did so, suspended vid. Daronium An. 867. N. 101. & passim. Photius himself, and all that were ordained or communicated with him, and was for inflicting upon them all the higest Censures of the Church. By this time I believe you begin to stand amazed ●● the confident Ignorance of this disingenuous Scri●●●●, who produceth the Example of Ignatius, and is positive that he never refused to communicate with Photius; nor indeed could he have pitched upon an Instance, which will more effectually ruin his whole design than this. For Ignatius was deposed by the Constantinopolitan Synod under Photius, because, as they pretended, he was not canonically ordained; nor did ever a greater Schism follow any Bishop's deprivation. Pag. 29. But the Collector cannot believe that Photius, had he been thrust out as an Usurper, would have been replaced in the same Throne: His Infidelity proceeds from Ignorance, for any Man who knows the time, and Men of the Age, will never admire at any strange and irregular proceedings in it. Before I go to the next Instance, I must advertise the Editor of his mistake about the Synodicon. Pag. 14. Edict. English. For the Synodicon was not, as he imagines, the Decree made against the Iconomachi, by the Synod at Constantinopl-under Michael and Theodora. A. D. 842. appointed to be read in the Greek Churches every Year upon the first Sunday vid. Anastasiu●: Caesar. de Jejunio Deipare apud Cotelerii Mon. Graec. tom. 3. p. 435. in Lent, but the Book composed A. D. 920. in the Reigns of Constantine and Romanus; it contained three * Compare Anast Caesar. apud Cotelerii 3. tom. Mon. rae. p. 432. with Baronius An. 921. N. 1, and 3. Synods, two about Faith, and the third about Marriages, and was to be read every Year in July: This Edict was made to lclose up the Divisions, and heal the breaches of the Church, and particularly to put an end to that Schism, which followed Nicholas' deprivation: for An. D. 901. many adhered to him, & rejected Euthymius whom the Constantinus Porphyrogenitus Praef. ad Edict. Vnionis apud Baronium An. 901. N. 6. and Curopalates apud eundem, An. 911. N. 18. Emperor put into his room; and the succeeding Emperor restored Nicholas and expelled Euthymius, who was barbarously used as an Intruder: Adulterum vocabant ut qui ad alienam uxorem ingressus esset, nempe Nicolai Ecclesiam acoepisset: This is a full demonstration that Nicholas and his party did not communicate with Euthymius, that there was a Schism followed Page 33. his deprivation, and that this Story-teller cannot speak Truth. The Edict of Union was a kind of an Act of Oblivion, all Irregularites were to be forgotten, and all Persons, however culpable, to be looked upon as faultless and regular; and he that will thence infer (as the Collector pretends to do) that there were no Schisms in the Church, upon the unjust deprivation of one Bishop, and the intrusion of another, and that the Intruder's Communion was not still avoided, may as well prove that we had no Civil Wars, because twenty Years after an Act of Indemnity set all right again, and forbade the Loyalists and Rebels to reproach or speak ill of one another: So that Photius, whilst Ignatius was alive, and Stephen and Anthony, whilst Photius was alive, were looked upon to be Intruders; till a great many Years after Peace was to be established, and the many Schisms their Irregularities had caused, were to be healed up. Of Cosmus Atticus, who was deprived by Michael, P. 33. A. D. 1146. Story speaks very little; yet had the Author given us all that Chroniates says concerning vid. Nic. Chroniatem de Man. Comneno l. 2. Sect. 3. him, he would have lost one Instance, though he would have showed himself honest, but to falsify and misrepresent is the peculiar Talon of this Author. Cosmus being under the Emperor's displeasure, was charged with Conspiracies against the Emperor, and with some very odd Opinions started by one Nepho a Monk: The Emperor calls a Synod, and Gosmus is convicted and deprived: Cosmus curses the Empress, excommunicates some of the Nobles, and bitterly rails at the Council for deposing him: By this temper and carriage, any one may conclude he was not very quiet after his Deposition, but we hear no more of him; and Baronius says, he died presently A. D. 1147. Num. 32. after his Deposition. The last Story is not worth examining; and now, Sir, pray reflect a little: This is R. B's excellent Tract, in which there are not two words to the purpose, nor one of Truth. This is that Antiquity which we admire the 6th, 7th, 8th and following Ages, the great disgraces of Christianity; and which should always be forgotten. The Canons being part of the M. S. not published by the Editor of the Greek and Latin, nor in the English Edition. IF any Presbyter despising his own Bishop, gathers a separate Congregation, and raiseth another Altar, having nothing to object against the Faith or Piety of his Bishop, let him be deposed as Abbitious and Turbulent. Let all the Clergy that adhere to him lie under the same Censures: and the the Lay-Men be excommunicated. But let the first, second, and third Admonition of the Bishop precede this Sentence, Canon. Apost. 31. If any gathers a Congregation separate from the Church, and despising the Church shall presume to do what belongs to the Church without the Bishop, or a Preshyter Licenced by the Bishop, let him be an Anathema; Concil. Gang. Can. 7th. If any Presbyter or Deacon despising his own Bishop, separates from the Church, gathers a private Congregation, and sets up an Altar, and refuseth to submit to his Bishop after the first and second Admonition, let him be deprived, and for ever made incapable of officiating again: And if he continues factious, and raiseth disturbances in the Church, let the Secular power take hold of him, as a Seditious breaker of the Peace. Synod. Antioch. Canon. 5th. If any Bishop be accused before all the Bishops of the same Province, and they all agree in their Sentence against Him, let not his Cause be reheard by any other, but let the unanimous Sentence of all the Bishops of the Province stand good. Can. 15th. If any Presbyter puffed up with Pride against his own Bishop makes a Schism, let him be Anathema, Concil. Carth Can. 10. The Devil having scattered Heretical Tares in ●he Church, and finding the Sword of the Spirit has cut them up by the Roots, falls upon another device, and endeavours to divide the Body of Christ by the madness of Schismatics. To baffle this contrivance the holy Synod decrees; If any Presbyter or Deacon shall presume upon pretence that his Bishop is guilty of great misdemeanours to withdraw from his communion before his Cause has been examined & determined by a Synod, and not mention his Name in public Prayers according to the Custom of the Church; let him be deprived and degraded: For he that is a bare Presbyter, and pretends to the power of the Metropolitans, and as far as in him lies condemns his own Father and Bishop, before they have given sentence is unworthy both the name and dignity of a Presbyter; let the Clergy who join with him be under the same Censures, and the Monks and Lay-Men stand excommunicated, till they renounce the Schismatics, and be reconciled to their own Bishop; Synod. dict. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ganon. 13. If any Bishop upon pretence that his Metropolitan is guilty of great Misdemeanours, shall separate from his Communion, and not mention his Name in public Prayers according to custom, the Holy Synod declares him deprived upon being convicted of withdrawing from his Metropolitans Communion, and making a Schism: for every Man should know his own bounds. A Presbyter must not despise his Bishop, nor a Bishop his Metropolitan. Synod. ejusd. Canon. 14. If any Bishop or Metropolitan shall presume to withdraw from the Communion of his Patriarch, and not mention his Name in public Prayers according to custom; but raises a Schism before a Synod has examined the Cause and given Sentence, the holy Synod declares him deprived upon Conviction. These Canons are made against those who divide from their Governors, upon pretence they are guilty of some Irregularitys and Misdemeanours: for those that separate from them when they openly profess, and teach any Heresy condemned by the holy Synods and Fathers of the Church, are not liable to the Censures of these Canons, if they withdraw from their Bishop before a Synod has examined the Cause and given Sentence; but are to be looked upon, and received as Orthodox. For they do not fly a Bishop but a false Bishop and a false Teacher: they do not break the Church's Unity by Schism; but endeavour to preserve the Church from Schisms and Divisions. These are the Canons at the end of the Baroccian M. S. written in the same Hand, on the same Paper, and joined in the same Page with the other part that is published: The reason why these were concealed is very evident: The Collector of the Stories was to be thought a Man of Ingenuity and Judgement, and 'tis certain that could not be, had this latter part been published together with the former: for who could think him to have either Modesty or Sense who writes a Treatise on purpose to prove that a Bishop, howsoever deprived, whether by the Edict of a Senate, or a Prince, or plain force, is bound to communicate with him who is put in his place, provided he be Orthodox, and yet produces Canons which peremptorily decree him a Schismatic, who separates either from his Bishop or Metropolitan, before a Synod has examined the Cause and given Sentence? It Seems * vid. Coteleri. Not. ad 3. Tom. Mon. Graec. p. 645. it is probable this was that Joseph who usurped the Throne of Arsenius the Patriarch of C. P. who was unjustly deposed by a time-serving Synod, called by the perjured Usurper Michael palaeologus, who being constituted Guardian with the Patriarch of the young Prince, John Lascaris put out his Eyes, and usurped his Throne. Upon this the Patriarches Excommunicated him for his Perjury, & Usurpation; and because he refused to absolve him, he called a Synod to depose him, and upon his deposition followed a great and long Schism in C. P. Se● the whole Story in Nicetas Gregoras. lib. 2, 3, 4▪ Jos●ph the Presbyter against whom these Stories were collected had made a Schism, and refused to communicate with one who was put into the Seat of a deprived Bishop, but then 'tis certain; from this part of the M. S. that Bishop who ever he was, deprived by a Synod; and had R. B. known this, doubtless he would have given another account of this Treatise, than he has done in his Preface. There are a great many other faults in the M. S. which I forbear to mention being, willing to make an End. Then shall only add that it gives no great credit to a cause to see Men of parts and learning lay such mighty stress on such crude false undigested a Paper. The Truth is, with due respect to Mr H. S. Curiosity's▪ and Mr B's. Observation; the discovery is so far from being extraordinary or Miraculous, that I rather wonder some ignorant Popish Priest upon the bare reading the Latin Title of it, in the Catalogue of the Baroccian M. S. which runs thus, Exampla ex Historiis Ecclesiasticis ●orum qui pr●t●r, Canon's add thronum P●triarchalem evecti sunt, viventibus adhuc l●gitimis Patriarchis, had not without farther consideration some years since produced the same, as an Apology for submittion to the late Ecclesiastical Commissioners, whose powers were to deprive as well as suspend. What sense the London Clergy would then have given of this M. S. their own Conscience can best tell, and most will think it easy to imagine; at least there would have been no occasion for the present labour of Sir, Your Humble Servant, FINIS.