THE CASE OF SEES VACANT By an Unjust or Uncanonical DEPRIVATION, STATED.  
In Reply to a TREATISE ENTITLED A Vindication of the Deprived Bishops, etc. TOGETHER WITH The several other Pamphlets lately published as Answers to the BAROCCIAN TREATISE.  
By HUMPHREY HODY, D. D. Fellow of Wadh. Coll. in Oxford.  
Abstineamus nos à Convitiis ne tempus inaniter impendamus, & ad id quod agitur inter nos potius advertamus. S. Aug. Ep. ad Pascentium Comitem.  
Non enim vincimur, quando offeruntur nobis meliora, sed instruimur; maximè in his, qua ad Ecclesia unitatem pertinent, & spei & fidei nostra veritatem. S. Cypr.  
LONDON, Printed by I. H. for Henry Mortlock, at the Phoenix in St. Paul's Churchyard. MDCXCIII.   

Imprimatur.  
Geo. Royse, R. R more in Christo Patri ac Dº Dº johanni Archiep. Cantuar. à Sacris Domest. Decemb. 1. 1692.   

To the most Reverend Father in God JOHN, By Divine Providence Lord Archbishop of CANTERBURY His GRACE Primate of all England and Metropolitan.  
May it please your Grace,  
THis Treatise being designed for the Service of the Church as at present Established, I presume to make your Grace this humble offer of it. It must be confessed that the greatness of the Subject deserves a more able Manager: but, my Lord, that favourable Acceptance with which you were pleased to honour the Baroccian Treatise, has encouraged me to hope, that your Grace will likewise be pleased to accept of these Endeavours, and to excuse and pardon the Defects of  
Your GRACE'sMost dutiful Servant, HUMPHREY HODY.   

bestowed upon it, they are forced to confess by their Practice, that it carries with it a great deal of Strength. If to be opposed by seven several Answerers, the latter not satisfied with what the former had urged, be an Argument of Strength in a Treatise, we may still believe (and I hope it was so:) that the finding it out at this Juncture had something of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in it.  
I presume the Reader will expect I should give him some Account of these seven several Answers which have been published against it. I shall lay down the Titles of 'em in the same Order as they came to my hands.  
1. The Oxford Antiquity examined, etc.  
2. An Answer to a Treatise out of Ecclesiastical History, translated from an ancient Greek MS. in the Public Library at Oxford, by Humphrey Hody, B. D. etc.  
3. Epistola ad Humfredum Hody, etc. de Tractatu è Scriniis Baroccianis Bibliothecae Bodleianae eruto, & ab illo nuper edito, conscripta.  
4. A farther Account of the Baroccian MS. lately published at Oxford.  
5. Reflections on the Greek MS translated by Mr Hody. This is not Printed, but was put into my hands in a MS.  
6. A Vindication of the Deprived Bishops, asserting their Spiritual Right against a Lay-Deprivation, against the Charge of Schism, etc.  
These six are professedly and entirely in Answer to the Baroccian Treatise. But the Author of this last mentioned was (I know not how) so unhappy as to mistake the Question. He writes against the Treatise as if the Design of it were to vindicate the Authority of the Civil Power in depriving Bishops: But that is not the Design of the Treatise; neither was it my Design in publishing it. And from this strange Mistake it comes to pass, that a great part of what that Author says is nothing at all to our Purpose.  
7. Unity of Priesthood necessary to the Unity of the Church, with some Reflections on the Oxford MS. and the Preface annexed.  
The Vindication of the Authority of the Civil Power in Depriving a Bishop for Political Crimes, I reserve for a particular Treatise. My Business at present is to manage the last Proposition, that advanced by the Baroccian Treatise. In Reply to these several Answers, I here present our Adversaries with an Impartial History of the Church's Behaviour (throughout all Ages) under Bishops put into the Places of others Deposed by a Lay, or otherwise Invalid, Sentence. I grant at present, that all Lay-Deprivations are invalid. I suppose the worst in all Cases. Suppose the Deprivation was not only uncanonical, but also unjust: Suppose the Depriver not only a Layman, but doubly unqualified by being likewise a Heretisk: Suppose besides, that the ejected Bishop was deprived for adhering to the Truth, and for opposing Vice or Heresy: Notwithstanding all this, I assert, That if he was deprived by a Power irresistible, a Submission to the present Possessor (if otherwise unexceptionable) is lawful, and warranted by the general Practice of the Ancients.  
It is not my Design to detain my Reader long in a Preface. Only one or two things I desire of him.  
If any thing here in this Treatise seem long and tedious to him, I desire he would be pleased to consider, that my Design was to make this Discourse as perfect as I could, that so, if possible, it might put an End to this Controversy. And if our Adversaries shall be pleased to publish a Reply to what is here written, I desire he would seriously compare and weigh one Treatise with the other, consider if the main and more Substantial Parts of this Treatise are answered, then judge for himself, and not expect that of Course there must be another Reply. As I am not so vain as to think myself clear from Error, so neither am I conscious to myself of having been so Careless and Indiligent as to think I am often mistaken, I mean in things material. I hate everlasting Wrangle. And an Adversary that Cavils, and excepts against things not material, I shall think deserves a Reply as little as one that Rails.  
'Twill be hard, I know, to persuade our Adversaries, that the History I here present 'em, is (what I call it) Impartial. But this Assurance I give 'em: I have written nothing but what I myself believe. That may be; perhaps they will say: But you have not written all that you believe: You have not told all you know. Why truly, as to that, I know not what to answer. Since the Judgements of Men are so extremely different, as that some have fansyed that the Canons I omitted, when I published the Buroccian Treatise, are really a Part of that Treatise, and aught to have been published with it; there is nothing so Impertinent but what some or other may fancy I ought to have mentioned. I cannot promise but that there may be more Canons. But lest it should be suspected, that tho' I have produced many Instances for the Cause I have undertaken to defend, there are others, as good, and as many, that make against us, which I have designedly concealed; I shall here make this solemn Declaration: That if any of our Adversaries (I speak to all in general, but my Eye is particularly upon the learned Vindicator) can produce me any one single Instance from the time of Aaron, the first Highpriest of the jews, to this very day, of a High priest disowned by the jews, or a Bishop disowned by the Generality of the Catholic Church for this Reason, because put into the place of another deposed by the Civil Authority: If they can show me, I say, any one single Instance, I shall own myself obliged for the Instruction. I assure my Reader, that after a nice and very Search I know not one.  
Should our Adversaries be able to produce such an Example (as I think they will never be able) 'twill advantage their Cause but little, especially if it be one of the later Ages, since it is not agreeable to the Practice of the Church in general. But if they are not able to produce so much as one single Example, how rashly have they acted, who have separated themselves from the Church on such an account!  
I conclude in the Words of Drusius, which I here make my own: Scripsi haec animo juvandi, non laedendi. Si laesi quempiam, jam me poenitet. Si offendi pias aures, monitus lubenter mutabo. Si erravi uspiam, monstretur mihi error, non ero pertinax.  
☞ Pag. 5. lin. 40. Whatsoever is notoriously repugnant to the Church's Interest, so as to be necessarily productive of very great Evils, is so far from being obliging, that it would be a Sin to act according to it.— Lest that Proposition should be misunderstood; after the words, of very great Evils: add (I speak of Oaths of Canonical Obedience).   

THE CONTENTS.  

CHAP. 1.  
The Reasonableness of submitting to the present Possessor, if otherwise unexceptionable, tho' the Predecessor was unjustly or invalidly deposed by the Secular Power, demonstrated. Objections answered. No obligation to the contrary by the Oath of Canonical Obedience. The Authority of S. Cyprian unreasonably alleged by our Adversaries. The Vindicator's Notion of Heresy not at all to his Purpose. Page 1.   

CHAP. II.  
That the jewish High-priests, who were put into the places of others (unjustly) Deposed by the Civil Authority, were all along owned and received as true High-priests. An Account of all those High-priests, from the Reign of King Solomon, to the Destruction of Jerusalem. The Instance of Abiathar and Zadok nicely examined. The Practice of the Jews, and God's Approbation of such High-priests a sufficient Warrant to us. Page 16.   

CHAP. III.  
That our Saviour himself, and his Apostles, acknowleged and communicated with those High-priests, who were put into the Places of others unjustly deposed by the Civil Authority, as true High-priests. Mr. Selden's Conjecture, That in the Histories of the New Testament, as often as there is mention made of the Highpriest, is to be understood not the Highpriest, properly so called, but the Prince of the Sanhedrin, confuted. A Reply to an Answer of our Adversaries, concerning the Reason why the Jews, our Saviour, and the Apostles submitted to the present Possessor. Page 33.   

CHAP. IU.  
That the Ancient Christians submitted all along to such Bishops (if accounted Orthodox) as were put into the Places of others deposed by the Secular Power, though never so unjustly. No Examples, either for or against us, in the three first Centuries, all the Emperors being then Heathens. The Example of Felix II. Bishop of Rome, the put into the place of Liberius, unjustly deposed by the bare Authority of the Emperor Constantius, and against Liberius' consent, yet he's owned by all that accounted him, Orthodox, by the Roman Clergy; among them, by the famous Damasus, who was afterwards Pope. He is owned as Metropolitan by the Bishops of the District of Rome. His Ordinations are allowed of as valid, by even his Adversary Liberius. He has been all along owned by the Church, as a Saint, and true Pope. Page 40.   

CHAP. V.  
The Catholics of Alexandria reject Lucius, because he was an Arian, not because his Predecessor Peter, was unjustly deposed by the Emperor. Our Adversaries Doctrine not known to the said Peter. §. 1. S. Briccius of Tours deposed by the People. Yet Justinian and Armentius his Successors, are owned as true Bishops of Tours. Armentius is owned as true. Bishop by S. Briccius himself, though he had never given up his Right, but had always claimed it. §. 2. S. Euthymius refuses to communicate with Theodosius, Patriarch of Jerusalem, because he was a Heretic, and had embrued his hands in the Blood of many Persons, not because the Patriarch Juvenalis, whose See he had usurped, was still living. Theodolius' Ordinations are allowed of as valid. §. 3. Acacius, Patriarch of Constantinople, refuses to communicate with Timotheus Aelurus, not because he was put into the place of Timotheus Salofaciolus, unjustly deposed by the Heretical Usurper Basiliscus, but because he was a Heretic and a Parricide. §. 4. Jo. Talaias', the Orthodox Patriarch of Alexandria being deposed by the bare Authority of the Emperor Zeno, though he still laid claim to the See, yet Petrus Mongus, his Successor, is acknowledged by all that accounted him Orthodox, by Acacius and Fravitas, Patriarches of Constantinople by Martyrius Patriarch of Jerusalem, by (almost) all the Bishops of the Eastern Church; That they who refused to communicate with Mongus, viz. the Western Bishops, the Bishops of Dardania, etc. did it only because they thought him a Heretic; That Euphemius Patriarch of Constantinople communicated with him till he found him to be a Heretic, than forsook his Communion. Pope Simplicius, when he heard that Talaias' was to be deposed, was well enough satisfied, till he understood, that Mongus, whom he accounted a Heretic, was designed for his Successor. Whether Orthodox Bishops unjustly ejected by the Emperor be restored, or new Orthodox Bishops be created, he values not, he only desires that they that are made Bishops should be Orthodox. Pope Felix III. not at all concerned for Talaias' being deprived without a Synod, only dislikes that one, whom he accounted a Heretic, was constituted in his place. §. 5. Calendion Patriarch of Antioch, being deposed by the Emperor Zeno, without any Synod, the Orthodox Bishops, viz. Pope Felix III. Quintianus Asculanus, Justinus Siculus, Acacius Constantinopolitanus, Antheon Arsinoites, Faustus, Apolloniates, Pamphilus Abydensis, Asclepiades of Trallium, etc. refuse to communicate with his Successor, Petrus Gnapheus, only because he was a Heretic; take no notice of his being constituted in the room of one Unsynodically deposed, and are ready to communicate with him as a true Patriarch of Antioch, if he will but forsake his Heresy. Page 57   

CHAP. VI  
Macedonius Patriarch of Constantinople being violently Deposed by the Heretical Emperor Anastasius, his Successor Timotheus is acknowleged by all that accounted him Orthodox, though at the same time they professed that the Deprivation of Macedonius was unjust, and could never be induced by any Terrors to subscribe to it, viz. by Flavianus Patriarch of Antioch, Elias Patriarch of Jerusalem, the Abbot of the Monastery of Studium, the (Orthodox) People of Constantinople, by the great Abbots of Palestine, S. Sabas, and S. Theodosius, and by all Palestine in general, at that time exceedingly flourishing for its zealous Profession of the Orthodox Faith. The Calumnies of the Vindicator concerning the Apostasy of the Patriarches Flavianus and Elias, confuted. Timotheus not known to them to be a Heretic when they communicated with him. They are Honoured by the Church as Saints. Page 70.   

CHAP. VII.  
Flavianus Patriarch of Antioch being deposed by the Emperor Anastasius, his Successor Severus is rejected by the Orthodox only because he was a Heretic. Elias Patriarch of Jerusalem being violently deposed by the said Emperor, his Successor John is immediately acknowleged by all the People, though at the same time they hated him: by the whole Church of Palestine; particularly the two great Abbots, S. Sabas and S. Theodosius, so famous for their Vndauntedness and Sanctity: by Johannes Cappadox Patriarch of Constantinople, and all the Greek Church: by all the whole Church ever since those Times. The Testimony of Photius Patriarch of Constantinople out of a Manuscript. The old Patriarch Elias, though so Tyrannically Deprived for adhering to the Orthodox Faith, continues however to communicate with those who acknowledged his Successor. Page 81.   

CHAP. VIII.  
S. Silverius Bishop of Rome being violently deposed by Belisarius the Emperor Justinian's General, his Successor Vigilius, though put into his place so deprived, though constituted by the bare Authority of Belisarius against the consent of the Clergy, and though Silverius never gave up his Right, is owned and received by the 5th. General Council, and by all the Church, as a true Pope. He was generally owned whilst Silverius himself was living. Baronius' conjecture concerning his being again ordained after Silverius' Death confuted, though for some time he communicated with Heretics, yet it was not known to the Orthodox who communicated with him. Page 90.   

CHAP. IX.  
Macarius, Patriarch of Jerusalem, being deposed by the Emperor Justinian, his Successor Eustochius is owned as a true Patriarch by the Fifth General Council and the whole Catholic Church. After some time Eustochius himself is deposed by the Emperor, and Macarius, being restored, is received by the Church. According to our Adversaries Principles, either Eustochius, or Macarius, after his Restauration, was no true Patriarch: yet the Church received both. Page 97.   

CHAP. X.  
Eutychius Patriarch of Constantinople being violently deposed by the Emp. Justinian for refusing to subscribe to his Heresy, John surnamed Scholasticus is made Patriarch in his room. After John was consecrated Patriarch, Eutychius was condemned by an Assembly that consisted as well of Lay Lords as Bishops, not only of ecclesiastics as the Vindicator contends. He actually lays claim to the See, despises the Sentence of his judges as null and invalid, because they proceeded unjustly and uncanonically against him, and Excommunicates them. Notwithstanding all this, his Successor, because he proved Orthodox, was received and owned by all the Church as a true Patriarch: He continued in the See near 13 years; near 12 years under Justin the Younger an Orthodox Emp. He is owned by the Church of Constantinople, tho' at the same time Eutychius was exceedingly beloved. John an Orthodox Patriarch of Alexandria is consecrated by him. For what reason Anastasius Patriarch by Antioch reproved the Patriarch of Alexandria for being ordained by him. Anastasius did not refuse to communicate with him, He is Honoured by the Patriarch Photius with the Title of Saint. Tho' Eutychius looked upon his Deprivation as absolutely invalid, and tho' he never resigned but accounted himself still the rightful Patriarch, yet he lived quietly, and never endeavoured to make a Division in the Church. Dr. Crakanthorp's Opinion, that Eutychius was deposed for being a Heretic, confuted. The Authority of the Life of Eutychius, often quoted in this Chapter, vindicated against the same Author. Page 101.   

CHAP. XI.  
S. Anastasius, Senior, Patriarch of Antioch, being deposed without any Synod by the Emperor Justin, junior, tho' he never resigned, yet his Successor Gregory is owned by all the Church. He continued Patriarch till his Death, for the space of 23 Years, the old Patriarch Anastasius being all the while living. Four Saints among those that lived at that time and communicated freely with him: S. simeon Stylites, junior, Pope Gregory the Great, S. Eulogius Patriarch of Alexandria, S. John Nesteutes Patriarch of Constantinople. Pope Gregory communicates with him as Patriarch of Antioch, tho' at the same time he declares Anastasius' Deprivation to be invalid, and looks upon Anastasius to be the rightful Patriarch. S. Anastasius, though deposed by the Lay-power, and though he had never given up his Right, yet never left the Communion of the Church. Page 121.   

CHAP. XII.  
S. Martin, Pope of Rome, being deposed without any Synod, and banished by the Heretical Emperor Constans, tho' he never resigned, yet Eugenius is chosen his Successor by the Clergy of Rome, tho' at the same time they were zealous Assertors of the Orthodox Faith, and had likewise a great love for S. Martin. Eugenius is received and owned by all as a true Pope, and has been honoured all along by the Church as a Saint. S. Martin himself owns him as a true Pope, and prays to God for him as such. Page 128.   

CHAP. XIII.  
Callinicus Patriarch of Constantinople being deposed without any Synod by the Emperor Justinianus Rhinotmetus, his Successor Cyrus is received as a true Patriarch. §. 1. So likewise is Nicetas who was put into the place of the Patriarch Constantine deposed without any Synod by the Emperor Constantinus Copronymus. §. 2. Page 135.   

CHAP. XIV.  
An Account of the Schism between Photius and Ignatius, Patriarches of Constantinople. Photius who was put into Ignatius' place when deposed by the Emperor, no such Person as his Enemies report him. By how great a Party he was received. The reason why some refused to acknowledge him was not so much, because he was so constituted, as because he was a Neophytus, and was besides ordained by a Bishop Excommunicated, and (in their judgements) stood himself Excommunicated at that time. Ignatius professes, that if Photius had been one of the Church, i. e. if he had not been an Excommunicated Person at the time of his Consecration, he would willingly have yielded to him. Ignatius values the Councils that condemned him no more than he did the Lay-power. The Vindicator in an Error concerning that Matter. His Errors concerning the Council called the First and Second. A New account of the reason of that Title. His Error concerning the Greatness of the Synod of Rome, called by P. Nicholas against Photius. Photius after he was received by the Church, and confirmed by a general Council, is deposed by the bare Authority of the Emperor Leo; yet his Successor Stephen is received by the Church. Page 139.   

CHAP. XV.  
Nicolaus Mysticus, Patriarch of Constantinople; not deprived by a Synod, as the Vindicator contends, but by the Emperor (Leo the Wise.) §. 1. Joseph Bishop of Brixia in Italy deposed without any Synod by King Besengarius, yet his Successor Antony is owned and received by the Church, particularly by the Pope, the Synods of Augspurg and Ravenna; and continued in the See many years. §. 2. Basilius Camaterus, and Nicetas Muntanes, Patriarches of Constantinople, deposed without any Synod by the Emperor Isaacius Angelus, yet no Division in the Church on their account. §. 3, 4. The Patriarches of the present Greek Church very frequently deprived by the Turk, yet no Division in the Church. As great Reason to submit to the present Possessor here, as in the Greek Church. The Necessity the same. Page 170.   

CHAP. XVI.  
The Sentence of an Uncanonical Synod, esteemed by the Ancients invalid. S. Chrysostom Patriarch of Constantinople, unjustly and invalidly deposed by a Synod. He declares however at first, against all Separation from the Church on his Account. He afterwards yields to Resentment, and refuses to Communicate with his Successors, Arsacius, and Atticus, because they had been his Enemies, and had a hand in his Deprivation. The Joannites acted by their Passions, not by Principles. They separate from the Church, not because there was another made Patriarch in S. Chrysostom's place, but before that was done. Arsacius being made Patriarch they refuse to Communicate with him, not because he was put into S. Chrysostom's place, but through Hatred against St. Chrysostom's Deposers, because they frequented his Churches. Pope Innocent of Rome not consistent with himself. His Practice contradicts his Words. He did not think Arsacius and Atticus no Bishops. His Zeal for the Honour of his own See, the chief Cause of his Opposing 'em. He at last receives Atticus as a true Patriarch: The Vindicator's Exception against the Translation of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Baroccian Treatise, confuted. The Eastern Bishops refuse to separate from the Communion of the Church, tho' S. Chrysostom laid Claim to his See, and actually separated, and tho' they esteemed his Deprivation invalid. So did the Monks of Egypt. The Testimony of S. Nicon, out of a M.S. S. Nicon himself, tho' he esteemed his Deprivation extremely unjust; yet approves of those that did not separate on his Account. S. Chrysostom takes it for granted, as a thing of Course, that all would immediately resolve to choose a new Patriarch in his room. The Patriarch Atticus highly esteemed by the whole African Church. The Ecclesiastical Historian, Socrates, disapproves of S. Chrysostom's Deprivation; yet speaks of Arsacius and Atticus, as of true Patriarches. Theodoret extremely offended at the Injustice of his Deposers, yet reckons both Arsacius and Atticus among the Patriarches of Constantinople. They are both owned in all the Catalogues of the Patriarches. Their Ordinations never questioned by any. Atticus praised by P. Celestine I. and owned to be a true Successor of S. Chrysostom. Page 176.   

CHAP. XVII.  
Deprivations by Heretical Synods invalid. S. Eustathius, Patriarch of Antioch, deposed by an Heretical Synod; he himself accounts his Deprivation invalid. The Orthodox separate from the Communion of his Successors, not because he was invalidly deprived, but because they accounted them Heretics. Eustathius acts as Bishop of Antioch, tho' in banishment, as long as his Successors were Heretics; but as soon as Meletius, an Orthodox Person, was ordained his Successor, he desisted, and concerned himself no more as Bishop of Antioch. That he lived till Meletius was made Patriarch, demonstrated against Baronius, Valesius, etc. Why some of the Orthodox refused to submit to Meletius. The Vindicator's Asse●rtion, That none accounted Meletius on Arian whilst he was Bishop, confuted. The Schism between the Meletians and the Paulinists no Example against us. §. 1, 2. The Instance of Maximus and Cyril of Jerusalem examined. §. 3. Euphemius, Patriarch of Constantinople, deposed by an Heretical Synod; yet Macedonius, an Orthodox and a good Man, accepts of his See, tho' he owned him to be the rightful Patriarch. Macedonius is received by the Catholics, tho' they loved Euphemius and accounted him unjustly deprived. He is owned by S. Elias Bishop of Jerusalem, tho' Elias at the same time declared Euphemius' Deprivation unjust, and refused to subscribe to it. §. 4. The Schisms of the Novatians, Donatists, and Meletians of Egypt, no Examples against us. §. 5. Two Fragments of Photius out of a M S. §. 1, 3. Page 186.   

CHAP. XVIII. The Conclusion.  
Bishops deposed by the Civil Authority obliged even in common Charity to acquiesce. But whether they acquiesce or not, the Church is to submit to the present Possessor. Page 196.    

The CASE of SEES Vacant, by an Unjust or Uncanonical Deprivation, Stated, etc.  

CHAP. I.  
The Reasonableness of submitting to the present Possessor, if otherwise unexceptionable, tho' the Predecessor was unjustly or invalidly deposed by the Secular Power, demonstrated. Objections answered. No obligation to the contrary by the Oath of Canonical Obedience. The Authority of S. Cyprian unreasonably alleged by our Adversaries. The Vindicator's Notion of Heresy not at all to his Purpose.  
THE Doctrine maintained by the Author of the Baroccian Treatise, is this; That supposing a Bishop deprived without any Synod by the Civil Power, is unjustly deprived; yet neither He himself, nor the People, aught to separate from the Communion of his Successor, provided that Successor is not a Heretic. In answer to that Treatise, it is alleged by some of our Adversaries, That not only Heresy, but Schism likewise, and Excommunication make a Person uncapable of being received as a Bishop. It is manifest, says one of our 
* An Answer to a Treatise out of Eccles. History, etc. in the Preface.  Answerers, that the Principles advanced by the Author of the Baroccian Treatise, make all Church-Censures ineffectual, and expose the Church to all the Mischiefs of Erastianism. For if a Prince should prefer an excommunicated Person to the See of the Bishop, by whom he stands excommunicated, supposing only that he was not excommunicated for Heresy, this Person, tho' never so justly excommunicated, must be owned and obeyed instead of the Bishop who excommunicated him; which lodges all Church-Power in the Prince, and makes all Ecclesiastical Censures of no effect for the Benefit and Preservation of the Church, whenever he pleases. All this He very well knew was nothing at all to his Purpose, and nothing against either ours, or our Author's Cause: But he likewise knew, it would have been less to his Purpose to have told his Reader so. To avoid all impertinent Cavil, that we may not run off from the Scope and Design of our Writing, I shall take leave to alter the last Clause of the Proposition thus: Provided that Successor be in all other Respects such whose Communion no good Catholic can justly refuse.  
§. 2. Having laid down fairly our Proposition, and secured it (if that may be possible) from all Cavil, We will now proceed to demonstrate the Truth of it. And this we shall do, first, from the Reasonableness of it; and, 2dly. from the Authority and Practice of the Ancients; by which the Reasonableness of it will more certainly and evidently appear.  
§. 3. First from the Reasonableness of it: And that is grounded on this certain and self-evident Maxim, That whatsoever is necessary for the present Peace and Tranquillity of the Church, that aught to be made use of, provided it is not in itself sinful, and the ill Consequences, which may possibly attend it, are either not so mischievous to the Church, or at least not so likely to happen as the Evils we endeavour to avoid. That this was a Maxim of the Ancients, We shall easily find, if we please but to cast our eyes back upon their Times, and consider those Methods, which were wont to be made use of in the Church. We shall find, that in all manner of Cases, They always preferred the Peace and Tranquillity of the Church to all other Things, the Essentials of Religion excepted. There was no Custom or Law of the Church so sacred and inviolable, but what they readily sacrificed, whensoever Necessity required, to the Peace and Tranquillity of it. If the exact Observation of the received Customs and Canons of the Church was not like to conduce to the present Peace and Tranquillity of it, they were readily superseded, and Necessity and Convenience became the only Legislators. To prefer a Rule of the Church to the Welfare and Prosperity of it, and to stand to the Saying of a Father in Opposition to a Law of Necessity, is a sort of Theological Pedantry, which They were not guilty of. They were wont to consider like truly Wise men, the Circumstances and the Exigencies of the Times; and they knew that those Customs and Canons of the Church, which were proper in the Times of Peace, could never indispensably oblige in Times of a different Complexion. To prevent, or to heal the Diseases of the Church, they acted like Philosophers, not like Empirics; considered what ought to be done in this and that particular Case; what was truly expedient, not what had been prescribed when the Symptoms were not the same. Tho' of all the General Councils, there was none so revered as the Nicene; and tho' among all the Canons of that Council there was none so Religiously and so Universally observed, as that which makes it unlawful for any one City to have two Bishops; and altho' that had always been a 
* S. Cypr. Ep. 55. ad Anton. Ergo ille evangelii vindex, ignorabat unum Episcopum esse oportere in Ecclesiâ Catholicâ, says Cornelius Bishop of Rome in his Epistle to Fabius of Antioch Ap. Euseb. Hist. l. 6. c. 43. concerning Novatian. To have two Bishops in one and the same City is adversum fas Sacerdotii singularis, says Pacianus Epist. 3. ad Sympronianum Novatianum.  Rule of the Catholic Church long before the time of that Council; yet S. Augustine, and all the other Catholic Bishops of Africa, thought fit to 
(a) Collat. Carthag. 1. c. 16.  propose that Expedient to their Adversaries the Donatists, for the putting an End to their Schism. And the same Expedient was 
(b) Theodoret Hist. Eccl. l. 5. c. 3.  proposed 
(c) And by the Synod of Sirmium to the Clergy and People of Rome in the Case of Felix and Liberius, as Sozomen says, l. 4. c. 15. but that Synod not was not Orthodox, but Arian.  by Meletius Bishop of Antioch to the Anti-bishop Paulinus, for the putting an End to that Schism that was between them. Thus when Queen Chrodielde of France had made the Bishops Theodorus and Proculus Archbishops of Tours 
(a) Gr●g. Turon. Hist. l. 10. c. 31.  together, the whole Gallican Church (because they were both very old, and so the Inconvenience of suffering it was not like to be so great as that of opposing the Queen) very freely acknowedged 'em. And tho' it is expressly forbidden by the aforesaid 
(b) Can. 4.  Council of Nice, and likewise by the more ancient Canons or Rules of the Church, That one Bishop alone should Ordain another; and three at least are positively required by that Council, how great soever the Necessity may be; tho' it were moreover unlawful for any one to be Ordained a Bishop without the Consent of the Metropolitan, and a Bishop so Ordained is declared 
(c) Can. 6.  by that Council uncapable of governing as a Bishop: Yet when Siderius had been ordained Bishop of Palebisca by 
(d) Synesius Epist. 67.  the single Bishop of Cyrene (a bold and resolute Man, one who often transgressed the Orders of his Superiors) and that too without the knowledge of S. Athanasius the Metropolitan; because of the badness of the Times, (it being in the Reign of the Arian Emperor Valens,) Athanasius allowed of his Orders: and because he was Orthodox, he was so far from depriving him of his Bishopric, that he preferred him to a greater. He 
(e) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  yielded, saith Synesius, to the Necessity of the Times. 'Tis a Saying of the same Author, (himself a Bishop, and a very great Man,) where he speaks concerning that Matter; viz. in one of his Epistles to the Patriarch of Alexandria, Theophilus: 
(f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  In dangerous Times it is necessary not to observe Rules. Tho' nothing was more unlawful than to be made a Bishop Simoniacally, or by the mere Force of the Lay-power; and tho' (as the Author of the 
(g) S. Silverius levatus est à Theodato Tyranno sine deliberatione Decreti: qui Theodatus corruptus pecuniâ datâ talem timorem induxit Clero, ut qui non consentiret in ejus Ordinationem gl●dio puniretur. Qui quidem Sacerdotes non subscripserunt in eum secundum morem antiquum vel Decretum confirmaverunt ante Ordinationem: jam vero ordinato sub vi & metu Silverio propter adunationem Ecclesiae & Religionis postmodum sic subscripserunt Episcopi.  Pontifical attests) Silverius obtained the Popedom of Rome by both those unlawful Means; yet after he was Ordained, the Peace of the Church requiring it, he was owned and received by all. He had given a Sum of Money to the Tyrant Theodatus, the King of the Goths, and the Tyrant threatened, that whosoever refused to consent to his Election should be punished with Death. The Bishops however refused to subscribe, and so he was made Pope without any consent of theirs. But after he was Ordained (says the Author of the Pontifical) they subscribed for the sake of the Unity of the Church and of Religion. Tho' the Synod of C P. before whom the Patriarch Alexius was accused for his having been promoted to that Dignity by the bare authority of the Emperor, without the Votes of the Clergy, looked upon his Promotion to be altogether unlawful; yet when he pleaded, that he had Ordained many Bishops, and, that if they deprived him, they must likewise deprive all those whom he had Ordained; upon that bare 
(h) Zonara's Annal. p. 190.  Consideration, because to Deprive so many was likely to occasion a great Disturbance in the Church, they overruled the Accusation, and determined nothing against him. When Calendion was made Patriarch of Antioch by the Emperor Zeno, and Ordained by Acacius the Patriarch of C P. tho' that 
(a) Simplicius Papa in Epist. ad Zenonem Imp.  was unlawful by the 
* By which it is enacted, That all Bishops should be Ordained by Bishops of their respective Provinces. Can. 4.  Canons of the Council of Nice, and directly contrary to the constant Custom of the Catholic Church; yet because it was done, as the Emperor and Acacius alleged, to avoid Seditions in Antioch, the Proceeding was approved of by Simplicius Bishop of Rome. Tho' I wish, 
(b) Epist. 16. ad Acacium. Quod sicut non optavimus ficri, ita faciles excusationi quam necessitas fecit exstitimus; quia quod voluntarium non est, non potest vocari in r●atum.  says he, that it had not been done, yet I easily excused it, because it was done through Necessity: For that which is not voluntary (i.e. that which is done only for Convenience or Necessity's sake) cannot be imputed as a Fault. These Examples and Autorities may serve to show in general, That there are no Laws or Customs of the Church so sacred, but what our Wise Forefathers thought aught to be postponed to the present Welfare and Prosperity of it. That the same was their Opinion in reference to our particular Case, We shall hereafter show in its due Place.  
§. 4. Our Proposition being thus established on that sure Maxim, acknowledged (as has been shown) by the Ancients; That whatsoever is necessary for the Peace and Tranquillity of the Church, that aught to be made use of, provided that it is not in itself Sinful; and that the ill Consequences, which may possibly attend it, are either not so mischievous to the Church, or at least not so likely to happen, as the Evils we endeavour to avoid. There are two Things which I am obliged to make out; First, That the Submitting to a Bishop put into the place of another unjustly Deposed by the Civil Authority, is not in itself Sinful: And, 2dly. That the ill Consequences, to which it is liable, are either not so mischievous to the Church, or at least not so likely to happen, as the Evils we endeavour to avoid.  
§. 5. First, It is not in itself Sinful: For if it is so, it must be so for one, or more, of these following Reasons: Either, first, because it is forbidden by some express Law of God; Or, 2dly. because it makes us Accomplices in the Injustice; Or, 3dly. because of the Oath of Canonical Obedience, which the inferior Clergy have taken to their Bishop, and the inferior Bishops to their Archbishop; Or, lastly, because, as one of our Adversaries, the learned Vindicator, contends, such a Bishop as is placed in the room of one Deposed by the Civil Authority, is in reality no Bishop. These Objections I shall consider distinctly.  
§. 6. First, It is not against any Law of God. For as to our Case, the Scripture is altogether silent. 'Tis true, it Commands us to be obedient to our Governors, and that Command reaches as well to the Spiritual as to the Temporal: But when there are two that stand Competitors, and both claim our Obedience; to which of those two our Obedience ought to be paid, it leaves to our Wisdom to determine.  
§. 7. Neither, 2dly. does it make us Accomplices in the Injustice. For if a Landlord be unjustly and invalidly dispossessed of his Estate by an Incompetent Authority, Who thinks the Tenant an Accomplice in the Injustice, because he pays his Rent to the present Possessor? Should the Clergy refuse to submit to the Bishops in possession, it could only serve to draw down Ruin upon themselves? It cannot restore those whom the State has deposed. It is not our Submitting to the present Possessors, that ejects the former; for they are already irretrievably Deposed, since the Supreme Power is peremptory against 'em. That has publicly declared, that, whoever are our Bishops, the old ones shall govern us no longer. If we think the Proceeding unjust, 'tis enough that we remonstrate against it, and express our dissatisfaction. If that will not do, the Good of the Public obliges us to be quiet.  
§. 8. Neither, Thirdly, is it sinful on the account of the Oath of Canonical Obedience. For that is taken not absolutely and unconditionally, but with this Supposition, That the Bishop, to whom we take it, has power to govern us. If I take an Oath, to be faithful or obedient to a Governor, whether Civil or Ecclesiastical, I engage myself to him as a Governor, that is, as one that can govern: If therefore he can no longer govern, whatsoever the Impediment is, my Obedience is no longer engaged. As it is in the State, so it is in the Church: The Oath that is taken to a Bishop, as he is the Governor of a Church, is not taken for the sake of the Bishop, but for the Peace and good Order of the Church. 'Tis this was the Design of the Church when she ordered such an Oath to be taken. When therefore the Oath tends no longer to the Good of the Church, but notoriously to Schism, Disorder, and Confusion, it cannot any longer oblige: but is void of itself, by virtue of the Church's Intent and Design in the first Institution of it.  
It is further to be considered, that particularly here in the Church of England, the Oath of Canonical Obedience is always taken with this Supposition, That the Civil Power, as well as the Ecclesiastical, do allow the Bishop to govern.  
But let us suppose even that which in reason we ought not to suppose: Let us suppose, that the Bishop intended that the Oath should always oblige. Whatsoever was the Intent of the Bishop; That was not the Intent of the Church. And it is the Intent of the Church, not the private Intent of the Bishop, that gives an Obligation to the Oath. I add, That should it be both the Intent of the Bishop, and likewise the Intent of the Person who takes the Oath, that it should always oblige; should it run in these express words; I will always adhere to you, if Deposed by the Civil Authority, in opposition to him, whosoever he be, that shall be put into your place: Should any one, I say, take such an Oath as that, yet he cannot be obliged by it. The Oath is in itself unlawful; 'tis a Sin against the Public, repugnant to the Will and the Welfare of the Church. It would be in effect to swear thus: I will for your sake oppose the Welfare of the Public, and break the Union of the Church; I will leave the Communion of the Church, and adhere to you, tho' I have not any Reason to do so besides this bare Oath. To conclude; Whatsoever is notoriously repugnant to the Church's interest, so as to be necessarily productive of very great Evils, is so far from being obliging, that it would be a Sin to act according to it.  
It is granted by our Adversaries, that the Obligation of an Oath of Canonical Obedience ceases, if a Bishop is deprived, tho' never so unjustly by a Synod: Now what is the Reason of that? 'Tis because to adhere to a Bishop, when a Synod has fully deposed him, and placed another in his See, must occasion a Division in the Church, and disturb the Public. If that is the Reason, as no one can assign any other, (at least there can be none but what is grounded on that,) then the Reason is the same in both Cases: and consequently in both Cases the Oath will be equally void. 'Tis in vain to allege, That in the Case of a Synod we cease to be obliged by our Oath, because every Bishop is supposed to have obliged himself to submit to the Determination of a Synod, whether just or unjust; and therefore when a Synod has Deposed him, tho' by an unjust sentence, his Place is truly void by virtue of his supposed Consent: For suppose a Bishop should have always declared, that he never would give his Consent, that a Synod should have Power to Depose him by an unjust Sentence: ought we not however to submit to the new Constituted Bishop? Our Adversaries will tell us, that we ought. But why? 'Tis because the Necessity of Government and the Peace of the Church requires it. Well then; it is certain, that it is not the Bishop's Consent, but Necessity and the Good of the Public that makes our Oath void.  
Tho' in some Respects there is a great deal of Difference between what is done by a competent or a lawful Authority, and what is done by an incompetent or an unlawful Authority: yet, as to our Acquiescence, in a Case of Necessity, such as is here supposed, I can see no Difference at all. The Obligation to acquiesce is the same in both Cases, when in both Cases the Necessity is the same. If a Lord be dispossessed of his Manor by an Incompetent Authority that cannot be resisted, (a Conqueror, suppose, or an unlawful Court) Who thinks the Tenant forsworn for submitting to the new Possessor? Who makes any difference there between a Competent and an Incompetent Authority? And why is the Tenant in such a Case not forsworn? If he cannot (or ought not to) oppose the Intruder, yet ought he not at least to give up his Estate, rather than submit and do Homage to the wrong Lord? 'Twill be granted, I presume, by our Adversaries, that he is neither obliged to oppose the Intruder, nor yet to give up his Estate. But why does the Oath, which he took to the rightful Lord, cease to oblige him? 'Tis because when he took the Oath, he took it only on this Supposition, That the Lord was Possessed of the Manor. The Peace and Tranquillity of the Public, and the Good of Tenants in general give that Restriction to the Oath.  
If the Bishop of a Frontier Town will not own the Authority of a Conqueror, and is therefore Deposed by that Conqueror, I desire to know of our Adversaries, whether the Clergy of that Town are perjured if they own that Bishop whom the Conqueror thinks fit to set over 'em? If a Bishop should by the Civil Power be condemned to perpetual and close Imprisonment, or be banished forever from his Country, so as that it is impossible for him to perform the Duties of a Bishop: or should he be carried away Captive we know not where, or from whence we cannot redeem him: What then? Are we still obliged by our Oath, because he was Deposed by no Synod? When in the Beginning of the 3d. Century, 
* Euseb. Hist Eccl. l. 6. c. 10.  Narcissus Bishop of jerusalem, had secretly withdrawn himself, and no Body knew what was become of him, left the Church should be without the Assistance of a Bishop, there was presently a new one Ordained. How their Bishop was lost, they knew not: 'Twas enough that he was gone, and did not any longer Officiate. The Church, says S. Chrysostom, cannot be without a Bishop. That he said to his People, when he himself was to be carried away into Banishment; and on that account he advises 'em to accept of another for their Bishop.  
I easily foresee what will be the Reply of our Adversaries. They will tell us, That in such Cases we ought to presume, that the Bishop gives his Consent that his Successor should be acknowledged: That therefore the Oath does no longer oblige, because there is a rational Presumption, that the banished, the imprisoned, or the captive Bishop, and He of the Frontier Town, do remit the Obligation of it. To this I answer: 1. It is indeed to be presumed, that a good Bishop, one that can say with 
* Orat. 28. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  S. Gregory, then Bishop of C P. I seek not yours, but you, will readily forego his own Interest for the Welfare and Prosperity of his Flock: And since our ejected Bishops, who are (I am fully persuaded) very worthy and good Men, and real Lovers of their People, have never by any public signification of their Will, laid claim to the Obedience of their People, and do not now exercise their Episcopal Power as before; in reason we ought to presume that they give their Consent that their Successors should be acknowledged. But, 2dly. let it be supposed, that the outed Governor does expressly assure his Inferiors, that he does not give his Consent, but still lays Claim to their Obedience. Suppose the conquered, the banished, the imprisoned, or the captive Bishop should charge his People expressly upon their Oath never to accept of any other Bishop as long as by the common Course of Nature he himself may be supposed to be living, or till they be assured he is dead: Let this I say be supposed, (and easy it is to be supposed,) What must be done in such Cases? Is the Church perjured if she accepts of another? Will our Adversaries say that she is? A hard Saying! Who can bear it? This Presumption of the ejected Governor's Consent is (I know) what is commonly alleged by some very learned and otherwise judicious Men, as the true and the only foundation of Acquiescence when the lawful Governor is unjustly Deposed by a Power incompetent: But that that is not the true and the only foundation, these Difficulties which I have alleged do (methinks) abundantly demonstrate. Other Men I must leave to their own ways of Thinking. For my part, I cannot imagine, that the Welfare and Prosperity of Mankind does depend upon so ticklish and uncertain a Point as that of an ejected Governor's Consent: That, if he refuses to give his Consent, all the Church or the Nation must be made a Sacrifice to him. It is easy to discover, upon how false a Principle that Notion is built. It is grounded on this, That the Oath that is taken to the Governor, is taken only for his sake; when if the true End and Design of Government were duly and impartially considered, it would be found (as above I observed) that the Oath that is taken to the Governor, is taken not only for his Good, but chiefly for the Good of the Public; and that any Oath taken to a Governor that is notoriously and in a high degree repugnant to the Good and Prosperity of the Public, so as to be necessarily productive of intolerable Evils, is in its own Nature void; because by the Public it was never designed that in such a Case it should oblige.  
By the Author of a Treatise entitled; Unity of Priesthood necessary to the Unity of Communion, there are two Examples produced, to show how observant the Ancients were of their Oath of Canonical Obedience; which the Author calls eminent Instances, and proposes 'em to the Consideration of the Bishops of our Church, and wishes they would seriously apply 'em. The first is that of Ivo Bishop of Chartres in France, who flourished about 600 years ago. He being one of the Suffragans of the Archbishop of Sens, was desired by the Bishop of Lions, who was likewise the Pope's Legate, to assist him at the Consecration of the Bishop of Nivers: but the Bishop of Nivers being a Suffragan to the said Archbishop of Sens; and that Archbishop having 
* In those days the Pope's power of Ordaining Bishops in another District, without the Consent of the Metropolitan, was not owned by the Western Church.  never given his Consent that the Bishop of Lions should Ordain a Bishop of his District, Ivo refuses to assist at the Consecration: And this is the reason he gives for it; Because if he should engage in such an undertaking, he should be unfaithful to his own Metropolitan, and betray the Privileges allowed that Church by the Canons as a Metropolitical Church, which by Oath he was obliged to maintain; Reus sieret violatae sponsionis quam Sedi Metropolitanae secerat. If the Archbishop of York had pretended to Constitute a Bishop of the Province of Canterbury, without the Consent of the Archbishop of Canterbury, and a Suffragan of the Province of Canterbury had assisted in that Ordination, our Bishops would then have been able to apply this eminent Instance. But as the Case stands, they know not, I believe, how to do it: And the Author is desired, that he himself, if he can, would be pleased to apply it. The other Instance is that of the Bishops of our own Country in the Reign of William II. There arising a great Difference between the King and Anselm Archbishop of Canterbury about acknowledging the Pope, Whether the Archbishop could lawfully do it without the King's Consent? The Matter was referred to the Parliament, and the Bishops being by the King required to deprive the Archbishop, they answered, saith Eadmerus, 
(a) Dolemus quod animo tuo, Domine, satisfacere non valemus. Primas est non modo istius regni, sed & Scotiae, & Hiberni●e, necnon adjacentium Infularum, nosque Suffraganei ejus, unde patet nos rationabiliter eum judicare vel damnare nullatenus posse, etiamsi aliqua culpa in eo, qu●e modo non valet, possit ostendi. P 30.  That that they could not do, because he was their Metropolitan. 'Tis hard to conjecture what our Author intended by proposing this Example as worthy Consideration: unless it be that an Archbishop of Canterbury should be now above all Deprivation. He contends in his Treatise, that a Bishop ought not to be Deprived, but by Bishops; and hereby producing this Example (if he means any thing at all) he intimates, That an Archbishop cannot be Deprived by the Bishops his Suffragans, because of their Oath of Obedience. But whatever was our Author's meaning: certain it is, that it was not because of the Oath of Obedience that the Bishops refused to Deprive Anselm, as the King would have had 'em; but because they had at 
(b) They had before promised the King to Deprive Anselm; but, I know not how, on a sudden they took up that Opinion, which before was never heard of amongst the Bishops of England: Protinus intellexerunt (saith Eadmerus, who was there present) quod prius non animadverterunt, nec ipsum advertere posse putaverant; viz. Archiepiscopum Cant. à nullo hominum, nisi à solo Papâ, judicari posse vel damnari, nec ab aliquo cogi pro quâvis calumniâ cuiquam, eo excepto, contra suum Velle respondere. P. 29.  that time an Opinion amongst 'em, that a Primate or Metropolitan could be judged and deprived by no one but the Pope. So far were they from thinking themselves obliged by their Oath not to Deprive him, that it's very 
(c) Ait Rex, Quid igitur restat? Si eum judicare non potestis, nun sa●em omnis obedientiae fidem ac frarernae societatis amicitiam ei denegare potes●is? Hot quidem, inqulunt, quoniam jubes, facere possumus. Properate igitur & quod dicitis citi●● facits, ut cum viderit se à cunctis despectum ac desolatum verecumdetur & ingemiscat se Urbanum, me Domino suo contempto, secutum. Et quo ista securius faciatis, En ego priúm in imperio meo penitùs ei omnem securitatem, & siduciam mei tollo, ac deinceps in illo vel de illo nulla in causà considere, vel eum pro Archiepiscopo aut Patre spirituali tenere volo.— Sociatis sibi Abbatibus (adds Eadmerus) Episcopi retulerunt Patri quod dixerat Rex, suam, pro voto illius, abnegationem ingerentes.— Cum propterea (answers the Archbishop) quoth me ad B. Petri Principis Apostolorum subjectionem ac fidelitatem teneo, mihi omnem subjectionem, fidem, & amicitiam, quam Primati vestro & Patri spirituali debetis, abnegatis, non reclè proceditis.  notorious, that tho' he was not Deprived, yet they threw off all Obedience, and renounced their Subjection to him.  
§. 9 We are next to consider that Objection which is made by the learned Vindicator, That a Bishop put into the place of another, deposed by the Lay-power, is in reality no Bishop. If this is true, than it must be granted, that we cannot be obliged for the sake of Union and Peace, to adhere to the present Possessor. This indeed is the Difference between our Civil and our Ecclesiastical Governors. The former are purely Governors, and nothing more is required in them but to be capable of Governing; The latter are not only Governors, but are likewise the Administrators of Sacraments, and the sole Ordainers of the Clergy. It is therefore necessary, not only that the Ecclesiastical Governor should be duly qualified for Government, but that he should be likewise endued by God Almighty with the Power of Ordaining, and of administering the holy Sacraments. Thus much must be granted: Let us now see what Argument the Vindicator can produce to degrade our present Possessors, and to prove 'em no Bishops. It is nothing but a Saying of S. Cyprian that is nothing at all to his Purpose. The Saying is this: That a second Bishop is no Bishop. 'Tis strange methinks, that so great and so worthy a Man, should pretend to raise so great and so extraordinary a Structure upon so weak a Foundation. The Occasion of the Saying was this: Novatian, a private Presbyter, had raised a Schism against Cornelius the lawful Bishop of Rome; he had got himself to be ordained Bishop, tho' Cornelius had never been deposed, was still the Possessor, and acknowledged the true and the only Bishop of Rome by all the Churches of the World, both the Western, the Eastern, and the African; and Novatian was by all condemned as a rank and notorious Schismatic. S. Cyprian, who was always very zealous for the Unity of the Church, thus expresses himself, in his Epistle to 
(a) Epist. 55. Quo (gradu Cathedr●e Sacerdotalis) occupato de Dei voluntate, atque omnium nostrûm consensione firmato; quisquis jam Episcopus fi●ri voluevit, foris fiat necesse est; nec habeat Ecclesiasticam Ordinationem qui Ecclesiae non tenet unitatem; quisquis ille suerit multum de se licet jactans, & sibi plurimum vindicans; profanus est, alienus est, foris est. Et cum post primum secundus esse non possit; quisquis post unum qui solus esse debeat, factus est; non jam secundus ille, sed nullus est.  Antonianus, concerning him. Cornelius, says he, being possessed of the See according to the Will of God, and confirmed in it by the Consent of us all; whoever would now be a Bishop of that See, must needs be out of the Church; neither can he have any Ecclesiastical Orders, who does not continue in Unity with the Church. Whosoever he is, whatsoever he may boast of himself or pretend to, he is a profane Person, an Alien, and not of the Church: And since there cannot be a second Bishop, where another is already in possession; whosoever is made Bishop after another, who ought to be alone, he is not a second, but none. This is the place out of which the learned Vindicator is pleased to draw his Argument; with how Logical an Inference the judicious Reader may see. 'Tis strange that That excellent Person should be so much blinded with Prejudice, as not to be able to discover how vast a difference there is between the Case of our Present Bishops, and that of which S. Cyprian discourses. Had Cornelius been deposed by the Emperor for refusing to acknowledge his Authority, we have all the reason in the world to believe, That his Deprivation would have been looked upon by S. Cyrrian as very reasonable and just. But let us still grant, as we first supposed in our Question, That he ought not to have been deprived by the Emperor himself, but by Bishops: Yet if he had been deprived for refusing to acknowledge the Emperor's Authority; or if he had been upon any other account so deprived by the Imperial Authority, as that it would have been impossible for him to exercise his Episcopal jurisdiction; Is it possible for any wise and unprejudiced Man to imagine, That S. Cyprian would have thought so ill of Novatian and his Adherents, as he did? If an Enemy of the Roman Empire, suppose the King of Persia, should in S. Cyprian's time have taken a Frontier City, and the Bishop of that City should have been deposed by him for refusing to submit to his Authority, Who can believe that That great and wise Man S. Cyprian, would have declared a new Bishop no Bishop, and all his Adherents Schismatical? That a second, that is, a Schismatical Bishop, an Invader of a See already filled and possessed, is no Bishop, is confessed to be S. Cyprian's Doctrine: But that our Bishops are, in the Sense of S. Cyprian, the Invaders of a See already filled and possessed, that they are secundi in his Sense, is what we utterly deny. Not a Word, not a Hint in S. Cyprian, from whence such a thing can be inferred. The Vindicator may be pleased to consider, that our present Possessors did not set up themselves in opposition to such as were possessed of their Sees; but before they pretended to be Bishops, their Predecessors were made by the Supreme Civil Power uncapable of Governing, i. e. were Deposed. Again, he ought to consider that our present Possessors were so far from ambitiously invading, like Novatian, the Sees of others, that they were all chose by their respective Churches according to the usual manner; viz. in the same manner that their Predecessors themselves had been. Let us hold up the Picture, which the Vindicator has been pleased to draw, to a true Light; and then we shall the better see what a strange Figure it is. The Vindicator's Enthymeme is this:  
S. Cyprian says, that he is no Bishop, but a Schismatic, who ambitiously invades a See which another is fully possessed of. Therefore,  
S. Cyprian thought, that he is no Bishop, but a Schismatic, who is chosen by the Church, according to the usual manner, into the place of another, whom the Civil Power will not suffer to govern any longer, because he refuses to own its Authority.  
I add, That if a Bishop be a Secundus, and no Bishop, who is put into the place of one unjustly deposed by the Civil Authority; than it likewise must follow, that he is a secundus, and no Bishop, who is put into the place of another whom a Synod has unjustly deposed. But this the learned Vindicator will neither himself grant; neither does he, I suppose, believe that S. Cyprian thought so. I say that must follow, if we seriously consider the Matter: For the only good Reason assignable, why in the former Case, the Successor is a secundus, and no Bishop, is this; Because the Predecessor has still a Right to the Bishopric. Now 'tis certain, that the Reason is the same in the latter Case: For a Bishop, whom a Synod has unjustly deprived, has still as much Right to his Bishopric, as a Bishop invalidly deposed by the Civil Authority. For to me 'tis absurd, that any unjust Sentence should take away the Right: tho', the Nature of Government requiring it, it is oftentimes necessary that we should submit to such a Sentence. And this (if I am not mistaken) is the common Sense of Mankind. When a Bishop is unjustly deprived by a Synod, we submit to his Successor; not because we imagine, that the other has no longer a Right, but only for Peace sake. That a Bishop unjustly deprived by a Synod, has still a Right to that Bishopric, as well as a Bishop deposed by an Incompetent Authority, may be clearly demonstrated from this, That after he is deprived, he may be again restored, and his Successor be deposed by Appeal to another Synod: (and yet the ejected Successor is accounted a true Bishop:) Now is that done justly or not? There is no one will say it is not: And yet it is impossible that the Successor should be justly deprived, if the other had no Right.  
To conclude: That a Bishop, who is put into the place of another, unjustly deprived by the Secular Power, is a real and true Bishop, will by and by appear by the Opinion and the Practice of the Ancients in general. Let us now proceed to demonstrate, that, as the submitting to a Bishop, whose Predecessor was unjustly deposed by the Civil Authority, is not in itself a Sin; so the ill Consequences to which it may be liable, are either not so mischievous to the Church, or not so likely to happen as the Evils we endeavour to avoid.  
§. 10. The Evils we endeavour to avoid are a Schism and a persecution; two Evils as great as can possibly befall the Church. And that those two very great Evils must needs be the certain and the immediate Consequences of a non-submission, is too evident to any Considering Man to need any Proof. If the ill Consequences, to which a submission may be liable, are so great as those two Evils, but not so certain; or if they are so certain, but not so great, it must then be granted that, with respect to Consequences, a Submission is more reasonable than a Non-submission. Now if we consider those evil Consequences which may justly be charged upon the Submission, we shall find that they are so far from being both so great and so certain, that they are neither so great nor so certain, as those two Evils, which, by a Non-submission, must unavoidably be brought upon the Church.  
So far indeed is the Principle, which we maintain, from being necessarily attended with any very ill Consequence, that it is not easy to foresee any Consequence at all that is Evil. As it is for the Good, the Peace, and Prosperity of the Church, that we think ourselves obliged to comply, upon occasion, with the Necessity of Times: So if ever the Civil Power (which to fear in this Reign would be very unjust and unreasonable) should pretend to break in upon the Essentials of the Church, we should then be obliged not to yield to such Impositions. ●● the evil Day must needs come, (which God forbid!) we will keep it off as long as we can. When it necessarily comes, as now we show our Prudence, so we'll prove our Fortitude. Not to endeavour to escape from Damascus when a Basket is fairly offered, would be Folly in an Apostle: And to run on to Martyrdom, when it honestly may be avoided, is, according to the Sanctions of the Primitive Christians, a Sin. Should a Person absolutely unqualified be imposed upon us for a Bishop, we are not then to accept him. If a Roman Decius would depose all our Bishops, and not permit us to constitute others in their places, that so he may destroy our Religion, we are not then to regard either what he does or commands. As the Romans, upon the Martyrdom of Fabian, tho', to avoid the Fury of a Persecution, 
* The Roman Clergy for that reason deferred the Election of Cornelius (above 16 Months) as they tell S. Cyprian in a Letter; but as soon as the Emperor had left Rome, they chose Cornelius Bishop.  Propter rerum & temporum difficultates, we might possibly defer the Election; yet as soon as we thought it convenient, we would choose a Cornelius Bishop notwithstanding the Tyrant's Decrees. If an Heretical King Frazamund should command us not to Ordain any Bishops, that so the Catholic Religion may of Course be rooted out, and his Heresy only prevail, we would then no more value that Command than the Catholics heretofore did; but in spite of his Edict, would get as many Bishops ordained as we thought convenient for the Church. But how can our Case be compared with either of these? Here is no forbidding Elections, no deposing all Bishops in general, no imposing unqualified Persons, no destroying of Religion, no advancing of Heresy. The only Question here is, Whether Paul or Apollo's may be followed, when Cephas is in Prison, and is rendered uncapable of acting as an Apostle? Our Adversaries are resolved to have Cephas; If they cannot have him, they will neither have Christ. To us 'tis altogether indifferent, whether Paul, or Apollo's, or Cephas, as long as we have Christ.  
There is only one Inconvenience that I can possibly foresee, which can justly be charged on this Principle which we advance; and that is this: That by a Submission to the present Possessor, the Civil Governor is like to be encouraged to tyrannize over the Church, and to turn out such Bishops as he does not like, whensoever he pleases, tho' never so unjustly. If that be the Objection of our Adversaries; I answer, First, That the same Inconvenience is in all manner of Government: By submitting to a Bishop who is put into the place of another, whom a Synod has unjustly deposed, that Synod may be possibly encouraged to turn out others unjustly, as many as it does not like, tho' never so worthy. Secondly, That here in England it is not the Will of the Prince that can turn out a Bishop. He has all the same Securities that another Subject can have, and he cannot be deprived of his Bishopric without a due Course of Law. If they mean that the King and the Parliament may by that be encouraged to Depose our Bishops at pleasure, that Supposition will be wild and extravagant. For who can imagine, that they can ever concur for the Deprivation of a Bishop, but upon a very extraordinary Occasion? There is nothing can be more manifest, than that this Inconvenience is not so likely to happen as those Evil's we endeavour to avoid. These are certain and present, That only possible. But, Thirdly, should we grant (what in reason cannot be granted) that it is as likely to happen: yet how great is the Difference? Should the State here, or in other Country's one single absolute Governor, be supposed to be so very dissolute, as to turn out frequently the Bishops of the Church without any just Cause; yet who can look upon that Mischief to be comparable to that of a Schism and a Persecution? What can the suffering of a few particular Men be, when compared to the Peace and Tranquillity of the whole Church besides? Our Adversaries may be pleased to consider, That it was not for the Bishops that the Church was established; but the Bishops were appointed for the sake of the Church. It is not therefore the Welfare of the Bishops, as the Bishops are these or those Men, much less of some few particular Bishops, but the Welfare of the whole Church in general that is chiefly to be regarded.  
§. 11. And thus, I hope, I have sufficiently made out what I proposed to prove, That the submitting to a Bishop, who is put into the place of another unjustly deposed by the Civil Authority, is neither in itself a Sin, nor liable to ill Consequences so likely to happen as the Evils we endeavour to avoid; or, if so likely to happen, not so great and pernicious to the Church as those are. From whence it necessarily follows, That such a Submission is in itself highly reasonable. Which was the first Proposition we proposed to be demonstrated. I come now to the Second General proposed to be made out, That such a Submission is agreeable to the Practice of the Ancients.  
§. 12. But before I put an end to this Chapter, and proceed to the Proof of this last Proposition, there remains yet one thing more to be considered, and that is the Imputation of Heresy, which the learned Vindicator is pleased to fix upon us. Any Opinion, says the Vindicator, on account of which Men separate from their Ecclesiastical Governors, is Heretical, tho' it be not in its own nature so: And such an Opinion is not Heretical only, when Men designedly separate from others on that very account, because they are not of that Opinion; but also when they venture on such Practices on account of that Opinion, wherein others cannot communicate with 'em; for that very reason, because they cannot join with 'em in that Opinion. Then plainly the differing in such Opinions, makes a difference of Communion unavoidable; and therefore the Opinions themselves, in such a Case as this is, are Signals of different Communions, which will come under the Charge of Heresy. His meaning is, that We, maintaining this Opinion, That the Civil Power has Authority to depose a Bishop for a Political Crime; or, if it has no such Authority, when once it has deposed a Bishop, it is lawful to acknowledge the Successor; and in consequence of that Opinion, submitting now to the present Possessors, are therefore Heretics, because He and his Party cannot join with us in that Practice, as being of the contrary Opinion. Here it comes into my mind, what S. jerom somewhere says, That he that can with Patience hear himself called Heretic, is no good Christian. This is true of those Heresies which were so in the Opinion of the Ancients: But in this Case we dare to be patient. Ego tibi Haereticus tu mihi: That's all the Return we shall make. The Vindicator, in consequence of his Opinion, that the Civil Authority has no power to depose a Bishop; and that if a Bishop is so deposed; his Successor ought to be rejected, tho' otherwise never so worthy, adheres to the Bishops deprived, and disowns those that are put into their places. In this Practice of the Vindicator we cannot join with him; and for that very reason, because we cannot join with him in his Opinion. And what now follows from our Author's Notion of Heresy, but that he himself is a Heretic? It is nothing at all to our Purpose: But for his own sake I shall here take upon me to add, (with a pace maximi Viri) That this Notion of Heresy is a groundless and a fancyfull Notion. That he may be properly called a Heretic, who separates from the Church, because the Church is not of his Opinion, tho' the Opinion is not at all in its own nature Heretical, I grant: For there is a sort of Heresy which is not sinful on the account of the Opinion maintained, but only because it is a separation from the Church. But this I assert in opposition to what is laid down by the Vindicator, That to all Heresy (as the word is strictly taken to denote a Sin contradistinct to Schism) it is necessary that there be an Opinion maintained; which either the Church condemns, or for which the Person that maintains it, does of himself separate from the Church. If it be not for any Opinion that the Vindicator is divided from the Church, but only for what is done by the Church, he cannot be called, in a strict sense, a Heretic, but only a Schismatic.  
§. 13. But to wave this Dispute, as not at all material, and to suffer the Vindicator, if he pleases, to enjoy his Notion; What now is the Life he would make of it? What is his Design in advancing it? The Life he makes of it is this: He alleges the aforesaid Heresy as a Reason for their Separation. He tells us, That we being guilty of Heresy, they ought by our own Concessions to keep off from our Communion, because we ourselves acknowledge that Heresy is a just cause of Separation. Tho' we should admit, says he, that the Author of the Baroccian Treatise had been successful in all that he has attempted: we may yet justify our adherence to the deprived Bishops, and our Separation from our Adversaries opposite Altars, and justify it too by the Doctrine of their own Author: for even he permits a Separation where Orthodoxy is concerned, and expressly excepts this Case from the Number of those which he pretends to confute. An Heretical Bishop he calls a false Bishop, etc. 'Tis strange that the worthy and learned Vindicator should be so much out in his Logic, as not to see the Inconsistency of what he alleges, and to offer this as a reason for their not communicating with us! If it is their not communicating with us that makes our Opinion Heretical, and us Heretics; how do they refuse to communicate with us for this reason, because we are Heretics? We could not be Heretics according to the Vindicator's own Notion, till they had refused to communicate with us. So dangerous a thing it is, First to do a thing rashly, and then to hunt for a Reason! If this Plea of our Author is good, I would very fain know how any Separation can be proved to be unlawful. Let our Author stand out a little, and dispute with our old Dissenters. He asks a Dissenter, why he separates from the Church? The Dissenter tells him 'tis, because the Church is Heretical. But why Heretical? Because she thinks it lawful to oblige her Members to the use of Ceremonies, and pursuant to that Opinion she actually imposes the use of 'em. In the use of these Ceremonies (says the Dissenter) we cannot join with you; and for that very reason, because we cannot join with you in this Opinion, That the Church has power to impose upon its Members the use of Ceremonies: And because we cannot join with the Church in this Opinion and Practice, upon that very account the Church is Heretical. Thus according to our Author's own Plea: but the Plea would be vain and Illogical.  
§. 14. But this is not all: We are not only Heretics upon that account, but, as the Vindicator contends, we are Heretics likewise (as Heresy signifies an erring) even in Fundamentals. He affirms, that our Opinion is a fundamental Error, because (as he says) it is utterly destructive of the Church, as the Church is a Society distinct from the State. To maintain this Opinion, That for Political Crimes a Bishop may be lawfully Deprived by the Civil Authority: Or this, That supposing he cannot be lawfully so deprived; yet if he is deprived, it is lawful for Peace-sake to submit to his Successor: How that is destructive of the Church, as the Church is a Society, I, for my part, cannot perceive. To me 'tis much more apparent, that to advance this Opinion, That a Bishop cannot be deprived by the Civil Authority for any Crime whatsoever, is destructive of all Civil Government, which, as well as the Ecclesiastical, is of God's Institution. He therefore that advances that Notion, advances a very dangerous Notion. But it is not my Business at present to engage in these Disquisitions. I shall only make bold to ask the Vindicator a few Questions. If he thinks that Opinion, concerning the Power of the Magistrate, a fundamental Heresy, and enough to justify the present Separation, how came it to pass that he did not leave the Communion of those, whom he knew to be the Maintainers of that Opinion, before this time? I will ask him one Question more: If the late Bishops should be again restored, would he then refuse to communicate with those who advance that Opinion? If he would not; than it is certain, that he does not think that enough to justify the present Separation. One more, and then I have done. I desire to know, if our Author knows none of his own Communion, who themselves acknowledge the Power of the Supreme Civil Governor to depose a Bishop for Political Crimes? 'Tis strange if he should be ignorant of what every body knows: And it is to be believed, that the Fathers themselves of his own Communion, at least some of 'em, agree with us in this Opinion, which the Church of England has all along to this time accounted Orthodox, tho' the Vindicator is pleased to declare it a Heresy.  
But enough, and too much, of these Matters. We will leave our much honoured Adversary to invent some other new Notion more consistent, and more useful for his Cause: And will now proceed to inquire how Heretical our Forefathers were in thinking it lawful to adhere to the present Possessor, and in acting accordingly.   

CHAP. II.  That the jewish High-priests, who were put into the places of others (unjustly) Deposed by the Civil Authority, were all along owned and received as true High-priests. An Account of all those High-priests, from the Reign of King Solomon, to the Destruction of Jerusalem. The Instance of Abiathar and Zadok nicely examined. The Practice of the Jews, and God's Approbation of such High-priests a sufficient Warrant to us. 
TO make it appear, that the general Practice of the Ancients, throughout all Ages, was agreeable to ours; I shall first show, That the same was the Practice of the jews throughout all Ages in reference to their High-priests: whom S. Cyprian, and others of the Fathers, are wont to compare to our Bishops. Secondly, I shall show, That our Saviour himself, and his Apostles, acknowledged and communicated with the High-priests of the jews, as true High-priests, tho' put into the places of others unjustly turned out by their Governors. By which they seem to instruct us, what we ought to do in relation to our Bishops or High-priests. And, Thirdly, I shall show, That the same has been all along the general Practice of the ancient Christians.  
§. 2. I begin with the jews: But before I proceed to Examples, I think it convenient to prevent an Objection that may possibly be made. This perhaps may be the Plea of our Adversaries, in answer to the Examples of the Jewish High-priests, That the Office of a Bishop amongst us is of a nature much more Spiritual, than the Office of those High-priests. To that Plea I answer; That he that considers the true and full Import of the Question now before us, will find it to be no other than this: Whether a Person duly invested with an Ecclesiastical Office of God's own Institution and Ordinance, being Deposed by the Lay-power, any other can lawfully succeed in that Office? Now as to God's particular Institution and Appointment, whatsoever otherwise the Difference may be, (which 'tis needless for us to contend about,) it is certain that the Jewish High-priests were rather superior than inferior to our Bishops. 'Twas by God himself, and that too in a very extraordinary manner, that the Office of the Highpriest was instituted; and it was from God alone that he received his Authority. If therefore a Person was accepted of by God as a true and real Highpriest, tho' put into the room of another Deposed by the Civil Authority, than a Bishop likewise may be truly a Bishop, and accordingly ought to be received, tho' put into the place of a Bishop deposed by that Power.  
To this I add, That the Annual Expiation for the Sins of the whole People was to be performed by the Highpriest. This was the chief of the federal Rites of that Religion, and that to which our Saviour's offering himself up a Sacrifice is particularly compared in the Epistle to the Hebrews. And this they did ex opere operato; so that it was of the greatest Consequence to the jews to have this Divine Institution performed by one appointed to it by God. And tho' no provision was made for Cases of Necessity, yet Necessity was understood to be a provision for itself. And it is certain these Annual Expiations were accepted of God till our Saviour's days; for that is a certain Consequence of their being still in Covenant with God, since these Expiations were the yearly renewing of that Covenant. Nor can any of the Performances of the Christian Priesthood be compared to this, unless we believe the Power of Transubstantiating. These Examples of the Jewish High-priests alone, were there no other to be alleged, would sufficiently warrant our Submission to our present Possessors. Let us now see what Examples those are.  
§. 3. Our first Example is that of the first Highpriest that ever we know to have been deposed, viz. of Abiathar. He was 
(a) After he had been Highpriest 40 years, viz. during all the Reign of King David.  deposed by the bare Authority of King Solomon, for having adhered to Adonijah his elder Brother, (as small a fault as could be of that nature) tho' afterwards he had submitted, and acknowledged King Solomon's Authority as soon as ever he was made King. Tho' Abiathar was thus deposed, yet Zadok being by the 
(b) And the King pur Benaiah in the room of joab over the Host, and Zadok the Priest did the King put in the room of Abiathar, 1 Kings 11.35.  same Authority placed in his room, all the Nation of the jews, both Priests and People, submit themselves to him, and own him as Highpriest. Even the Sons of the deposed Abiathar, jonathan and Ahimelech, act as Priests under Zadok. josephus in his jewish Antiquities has observed, that this was the first Instance of a Highpriest deposed. From the beginning, says he, 
(c) L. 20. c. 8. He does not speak thus in express Terms, but to a considering Reader that knows the Story of Abiathar's being deposed by King Solomon, it will plainly appear to be his meaning.  for 13 Successions there was no Highpriest put into the room of another, unless deceased; after that some began to be constituted whilst their Predecessors were living. What is said by some of the Rabbis concerning the Deprivation of Phineas, the Grandson of Aaron, was altogether unknown 
* Tho' Phineas' Posterity were put by when Ithamar's obtained the High-priesthood, yet we ought not to conclude from thence, as the Rabbis usually do, That Phineas himself was deposed: For it might be done after his death.  to josephus; neither does it concern the Subject of this Treatise; he being deprived, if at all, by God's immediate Act.  
It's alleged by 
(d) Unity of Priesthood, etc. p. 34, 35. The Crime being Capital, and the Highpriest the Criminal, we may well conclude, That before Solomon thrust him from the Priesthood, the Sanhedrin had previously judged & passed their Sentence upon him.  one of our Adversaries, that Abiathar was not deposed by the Authority of the King, but by that of the Sanhedrin, or great Council: And this he endeavours to evince from these two Considerations. 1. Because it is said by the Rabbis, that in Capital Causes it was lawful only for the Sanhedrin to judge the Highpriest. 2. Because josephus, the Historian, says of joab, That before the King sent Benaiah to fall upon him, he first sent him to fetch him from the Altar, in order to bring him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Seat of judicature, there to plead his Cause. And if this Formality, says our Author, was used towards Joab before ever the Command was given, to have him slain; it's probable ●he like was used towards Adonijah, the King's Brother, before he was slain: and the like also to Abiathar before he was thrust from the Priesthood. At present it is not my Business to assert the Authority of the Civil Power in depriving a Bishop, or to show that the Kings of judea had Authority to deprive a Highpriest: I suppose at present, That the Deprivation of Abiathar by King Solomon was irregular and unlawful; and am only to demonstrate, That, de facto, he was deposed by the bare Authority of the King. Now a thousand such little Nothings, as our Author's Presumptions and Conjectures, from what is related by josephus concerning joab, I shall fully and unanswerably confute by producing the Words of the Scripture 
* 1 Kings 11.26. . Now therefore as the Lord liveth, says King Solomon, which hath established me, and set me on the Throne of David my Father, and who hath made me a house as he promised, Adonijah shall be put to death this day. And King Solomon sent by the hand of Benaiah the Son of jehoiada, and he fell upon him that he died. And unto Abiathar the Priest said the King, Get thee to Anathoth, unto thine own Fields, for thou art worthy of death: but I will not at this time put thee to death, because thou barest the Ark of the Lord God before David my Father, and because thou hast been afflicted in all wherein my Father was afflicted. So Solomon thrust out Abiathar from being Priest unto the Lord. So likewise josephus: 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Antiq. l. 8. c. 1.  And sending for Benaiah the Captain of his Guard, he commanded him to go and slay his Brother Adonijah. And calling to him the Priest Abiathar, Thy bearing the Ark, says he, with my Father, and those things which thou suffered'st in his service, deliver thee from death; but this punishment I inflict upon thee, because thou tookedst part with Adonijah. Stay thou not here, nor come into my sight any more, but go unto thy own Country, and there live till the time of thy death. For having thus sinned, thou art not worthy to continue in 
‖ Not as our English Author renders it, p. 34. For since thou hast so offended me, it is not convenient that thou shouldst be in honour with me.  Dignity (as Highpriest.) And thus for the aforesaid Cause the Family of Ithamar was deprived of the Honour of the High-priesthood. Whatsoever was done to joab, 'tis as clear and apparent as the Sun, That what was done to Adonijah and Abiathar, was all done on a sudden, without any manner of Judicial Process in the Sanhedrin, by the bare Authority of the King. But neither is it true that joab was ever cited to plead his Cause in the Sanhedrin. For, first, josephus himself does not say so, as our Author imagines: For by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is not meant the Court of the Sanhedrin (that is wont to be called by josephus, not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) but the King's own Tribunal, where he himself sat judge: and so 'tis understood by both the Latin Translators. 
(a) Mittens Benaiam, cum jussit adduci, ut in ejus judicio satisfaciret.  Epiphanius Scholar and 
b Misit Benaiam qui citaret cum ad suum tribunal.  Gelenius. 2. Even that which josephus does say, is not true; as appears by the words of the Scripture, which josephus follows and mistakes. Then tidings came to joab, for joab had turned after Adonijah, tho' he turned not after Absalon; and joab fled unto the Tabernacle of the Lord, and caught hold on the Horns of the Altar. And it was told King Solomon, that joab was fled unto the Tabernacle of the Lord, and behold he is by the Altar: Then Solomon sent Benaiah, the Son of jehoiada, saying, Go, fall upon him. And Benaiah came to the Tabernacle of the Lord, and said unto him, Thus saith the King, Come forth. And he said, Nay, but I will die here. And Benaiah brought the King word again, saying, Thus said joab, and thus he answered me. And the King said unto him, Do as he said, and fall upon him. It is said expressly that the King sent Benaiah (not to cite him to the Tribunal, but immediately) to fall upon him. These Words josephus, who oftentimes mistakes the true Sense of the Scripture by trusting too much to his Memory, had forgot: And because he remembered that joab was commanded to come forth, he therefore rashly conjectured, that he was commanded to come to the Tribunal: When the Reason why he was commanded to come forth, was only this, Because it was thought not 
(c) See Exod. 21.14.  proper to shed his blood at the Altar.  
Much like the aforesaid Evasion of our English Author is that of the Jesuits 
(d) Admodum quoque rationi consentaneum est etiam Sadoci Pontificis Sententiam consensúmve intervenisse; à Levitis enim & Sacerdotibus maximam judiciorum partem fuisse tractatam ex pluribus locis Scripturae constat. Annal. ad An. 3. Salomonis n. 15.  Salianus and 
(e) Probabile est Sadoc sententiam consensúmque intervenisse, etc. Comment. in loc.  Menochius; who would needs persuade us, that what was done, was not done by King Solomon alone, but that Zadok likewise, the Priest, passed his Sentence upon Abiathar, and condemned him to be deprived; at least that his Consent was desired and granted for the Ratification of the King's Sentence. A wretched and a groundless Shift, that deserves not to be confuted!  
A third Evasion is that of the Author of a Pamphlet, entitled, Solomon and Abiathar, etc. King Solomon (says he) did not properly and judicially deprive Abiathar of the High-priesthood, but only commanded or required him to quit it on pain of death. For thus the words run: And unto Abiathar said the King▪ Get thee to thy Fields at Anathoth, for thou art a Man of death: But this day I will not put thee to death, because, etc. Which the LXXII. render thus, Get thee to Anathoth to thy Field, for thou art a Man of death in this very day; but I will not put thee to death, because, etc. A Man of death, our Translation renders worthy of death; but the LXXII. render the words not so much significative of Merit as a Menace, according to such a Paraphrase: Get thee off to Anathoth to thy Field, for else thou art a Man of death this very day; and if thou dost so, I will not put thee to death. So that Abiathar here was put to his Option, Whether he would with dishonour retire from his Office, or suffer death, this latter being in the rightful power of the King, if Abiathar would not yield in the former. So that Abiathar 's Priesthood determined by his own voluntary Session, not the King's Censure. In answer to this, I need but produce the Words of the LXXII. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. This (excepting the Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which are removed from the latter Clause to the antecedent,) agrees exactly with the Hebrew: and the natural sense of those words is no other than what we have in our English Translation, with which all Interpreters agree, josephus, (as is plain from his Words above produced) the 
(a) Ad Ghanathoth ito tibi in domos tuas, quia Vir obnoxius occasioni tu es: sed hodie non occidam te, quia, etc.  Chaldee Paraphrast, the 
(b) In Anathoth te recipe odd agrum tuum, quoniam homo es morte dignus: body tamen non intersiciam te, eò quod, etc.  Syriack, the 
(c) Vade in Anathoth rus tuum, & fundi tui culture v●cato, n●n homo es qui necem mereris: veruntamen non occidam te, quia, etc.  Arabic, and the 
(d) Vade in Anathoth ad agrum tuum, equidem vir mortis es, sed hodie te non intersiciam, quia, etc.  Latin Translators, together with the Rabbinical Commentators Who all understand the Text of a positive and authoritative Ejectment. And that it was a positive Command, not an Option proposed to Abiathar, but an absolute Deprivation, is yet more plain from the words which immediately follow: So Solomon thrust out Abiathar, etc. in the Greek: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.  
Bartoldus Nihusins has another sort of Evasion. 
(e) Quanquam ejecit Solomon Abiathar ut non esset Sacerdos Domini, & Sadoc Sacerdotem posuit pro Abiathar, sensus tamen fuerit ex Aulâ solùm Regis ejectum Abiatharem & substitutum ei Sadocum in Sacerdotem Aulae, ne ille sed hic fungeretur deinceps ibi juxta Domini Arcam Pontificis partibus; quo ipso non prohibuit Solomon Abiathari Juum exequi munus in Tabernaculo Mosaico quod stabat in Gabaon; ut exequntus illie fuerit antea Sadoc tanquam vicarius, 1. Paralip. 16.29. Nam profectò Rex pagum Anathoth non assignavit Abiathari in carcerem 3 Reg. 2.26. & hinc is etiamnum postea vocatus legatur Sacerdos: Sadoc & Abiathar Sacerdotes; sen Pontifices. 1 Reg. IV. 4. Hypodigm. Sect. 42. p. 290.  He tells us, That Abiathar was only turned out of his Office at jerusalem, and forbid to officiate as Highpriest at Court, where the Ark was fixed, not properly deprived of the Office of Highpriest. For afterwards, says he, he was permitted to officiate as Highpriest at Gibeon, where Zadok himself had been formerly Highpriest before he was made in his stead Highpriest of the Ark in jerusalem. And this, he thinks, may be proved from hence, That in the 4th. of the 2d. of Kings, he is ranked with Zadok as Highpriest under Solomon: And Benaiah the Son of jehoiada was over the Host. And Sadok and Abiathar were Priests. This Conjecture of Nihusius, were it granted to be true, would not make at all for his Cause, nor yet against ours. For still it is certain, that Abiathar was turned out at jerusalem, and Zadok was made Highpriest in his stead, and by all acknowledged as the true Aaronick Highpriest. Whether Zadok, when Highpriest at Gibeon, was properly a Highpriest independent of Abiathar, or only Vicarius like our Suffragan Bishops, or Chorepiscopi, is what we cannot determine; neither are we concerned to know. Certain it is, that when he was made Highpriest at jerusalem, in the room of Abiathar, he was 
(f) 1 Chron. 29.22.  anointed in the same manner as others used to be, who were never High-priests before. Abulensis says there are some who conclude from the Text before quoted, That Abiathar, by the special Clemency of the King, was again restored to the great High-priesthood of jerusalem: And of this Opinion, says 
(a) De Rege eligendo & deponendo, §. 64.  Frischmuth, was Carthusianus: But that is a mistake; for the Conjecture of Carthusianus is only this, 
(b) The King, says he, deprived him, ut Pontificali officio amplius non fungeretur, imò nec sacerdotali ad tempus. Veruntamen postea fecit ei elementiam, admittenao ipsum ad Sacerdotale officium. Nam infrà habetur: Zadoc & Abiathar Sacerdotes. Com. in 1 Reg. c. 2.  That Abiathar was permitted by the King to officiate under Zadok, as one of the minor Priests. Whoever they were that were of the aforesaid Opinion, it is certain they were under a Mistake. For the Scripture observes, that when Abiathar was turned out, and Zadok put in his place, the Words which God had spoken to Eli, concerning the Alienation of the High-priesthood from his Family, were fulfilled. And what was that Prophecy? There shall not be (says God) an 
* That is, according to some Commentators, There shall not be a Highpriest, etc.  Old man in thy house for ever— I will raise me up a faithful Priest, 
1 Sam. c. 2.  and I will build him a sure house, and he shall walk before mine anointed for ever. And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left in thy house, shall come and crouch to him for a piece of silver, and a morsel of bread, and shall say, Put me (I pray thee) into one of the Priests Offices, that I may eat a piece of bread. This plainly demonstrates, that Abiathar was not again restored to the great High-priesthood at jerusalem: And from thence it may likewise be gathered, that he was not permitted to officiate as Highpriest at Gibeon. So great an Honour would hardly suit with that Prophecy: And how is it likely, that the King would permit one whom he had banished from jerusalem as his Enemy, and unworthy of the High-priesthood, to officiate as Highpriest at Gibeon, since he himself (which Nihusius seems not to have thought on) was wont to go 
(c) 1 Reg. c. 3. v. 3, 4.  thither, and to offer Sacrifices there, as well as at jerusalem? I might add against both these Opinions, as well the one as the other, that josephus knew nothing of Abiathar's Officiating after his Ejectment: He takes it for granted, as appears by the Sentence which he makes the King pass upon him, that he never came any more into the King's sight, but lived all his life at Anathoth. And 
(d) Cit apud Frischmuth. §. 65. Praecepit Abiathari Solomon, ut nepedem efferret loco ipsi assignato, Anathot. Futurum eni● alias, ut si inde se proripere haud dubitârit, sanguis ejus sit super capite ejus, quemadmodum & Simei filio Gera intimaverat; Atque hoc constat ex verbis Salomonis: Sed hodie te non interficiam: quasi dicat, At interficiam te eo die, quo egredi inde quopiam ausus fueris.  Abravanel, a learned and judicious Rabbi, is so far from thinking that he afterwards Officiated as Highpriest either at Gibeon or at jerusalem, that he thinks he was banished to Anathoth as to a Prison, and was not to stir thence upon peril of Life. And so far was 
(e) Cit à P. Martyr in Com. ad loc. & à Frischmuth, loco cit.  Kimchi from being of either of the aforesaid Opinions upon the account of that Text, that he thinks Abiathar, who is mentioned there with Zadok, was not he that was Ejected, but another of that Name. 'Tis a Conjecture of 
(a) Cit ab eisdem.  R. Levi Ben Gerson, that Abiathar was sometimes permitted to Officiate in the room of Zadok, whenever Zadok was by any Defect or Pollution made uncapable of Officiating himself; And therefore he is ranked with Zadok in that Text. 
(b) Nic. de Lirâ, Sanctius.  Others think with Carthusianus, That therefore he is mentioned with Zadok, because he was admitted to Officiate as one of the lesser Priests. 'Tis the Opinion of others, That therefore he is mentioned with Zadok, because in the beginning of Solomon's Reign he had been Highpriest: For it is not, say 
(c) See Abulensit Quaest 33. in 3 Reg. c. 2. He is followed by P. Martyr, Tirinus, à Lapide.  they, the Design of that Chapter, to give an account of those Men who were at one certain particular time the great Officers under Solomon, but to give an account likewise of those who at any time had been so. This Explication may well pass for 
(d) The only Objection seems to be this, That joab, who was not actually deprived of his Generalship till Abiathar was of the High-priesthood, is not there mentioned, but only Benaiah. But perhaps the reason might be, Because joab, who had adhered to Adonijah, tho' he was not presently deprived, yet he never had acted as General in the time of Solomon; whereas Abiathar had several times acted as Highpriest.  probable; but the true one I take to be that of Serarius, Menochius, and Grotius, who tell us, That therefore he is joined with Zadok in the Text above cited; because, tho' turned out of the Office, yet he still enjoyed the Name and Title of Highpriest, (and was still highly honoured as a Man of great Age and Dignity.) Thus 'tis certain from josephus, That in Aftertimes, when so many High-priests were deposed, all they that were deposed enjoyed still the Title as well as if they had been the Possessors. And so it is now with the Patriarches of Constantinople.  
A fifth Evasion is that of 
(e) L. 6. de rebus Salomonis, c. 15. n. 7.  Io. de Pineda, and the Card. 
(f) L. 2. de Pont. c. 29. & lib. contra 8. Propos. Venetam.  Bellarmin, whom the Jesuits generally follow, as 
(g) Defence. Bellarmini, l. 2. c. 29. & l. 2. ad Theologos Venetos.  Gretser, 
(h) Com. in loc  Serarius, 
(i) Com. in loc  A Lapide, 
(k) Manuali Controvers. l. 5. c. 19 §. 39, 40.  Becanus, etc. They own that Abiathar was completely deprived by King Solomon; but, say they, he did not do it as King, but by a particular Commission from God as a Prophet. And this they prove from that Saying of the Scripture: And Solomon thrust out Abiathar from being Priest unto the Lord: that the word of the Lord might be fulfilled which he spoke concerning the House of Eli in Shiloh. In answer to this, I observe, first, That till after this was done King Solomon had no Gift of Prophecy: It appears from 
(l) See 1 Reg. c. 3.  the Scripture that he was first inspired and made a Prophet when God appeared to him in a Vision at Gibeon: which was after the Deprivation of Abiathar. 2dly. If Solomon had deprived Abiathar to this end, that he might fulfil that Prophecy God to Eli; yet it would not thence follow, That he did it as a Prophet. He had heard of that Prophecy, and so he might adventure of himself to fulfil it. It appears from 
(m) Quaest 32 ad 3 Reg. cap. 2. An Solomon peccâsset privando Abiathar si ●um priuâsset solùm ut compleretur Sermo Dei? Dicendum (inquit) quod peccaret Salomon si non privaret Abiathar ex aliâ causâ. Quod patet ex duobus. 1ᵒ. Quia dato quod sciret Sacerdotium aliquando cessaturum de domo Heli: tamen nesciebat an Deus voluerat, quod cessaret tempore Abiathar, vel alterius Successoris; ideo si privaret Abiathar, ageret contra conscientiam: dubitans, an compleret Prophetiam Dei, vel ageret contra intentionem ejus. Secundò, peccâsset Salomon isto modo, quia dato quod revelatum esset debere finiri Sacerdotium domûs Heli in Abiathar, non licebat et privare Abiathar, quia aut privaret cum jure suo; sc. in quantum trat Princeps populi Dei, ad quem pertinebat infligore poenas, & praemia tribuere, aut ex aliquâ concessione speciali Dei. Non primo modo, quia tunc non poterat privare Abiathar, nisi pro aliquo crimins, quia poenae regulariter pro culpis dari debent. Item non erat Abiathar de jurisdictione Salomonis quantum ad Prophetiam dictam de domo Heli: Nam Solomon & quilibet alius Princeps p●pul● Dei erat executor Legis datae per Mosin, quae erat communis, Prophetiae tamen dictae contra aliquos crant quaedam sententiae particulares Dei, quarum nullus de jure orat Executor, nisi ipse Deus, aut ille cui ipse specialiter hoc demandaret, sed cum aliquis punit alium, qui non est de jurisdictione suà, peccat: ergo etiam Salomon peccâsset. Secundum non stat, quia Deus non commisit punitionem Abiathar, vel Executionem Prophetiae ipsi Salomoni specialiter, ergo si ipse se intromitteret de executione illius, peccaret tanquam judicans in non suo territorio, vel usurpan▪ sibi quocunque modo jurisdictionem. Peccaret ergo Salomon quocunque modo puniret Abiathar, nisi pro aliquo crimine cum privaret, quia quantum ad istud esset de Iurisdictione suâ, & sic factum est hic, nam pro crimine l. ●s. ● Majestatis privavit cum.  Abulensis, that tho' in his time, and before, there were some of that Opinion, That Solomon deprived Abiathar that he might fulfil the aforesaid Prophecy, yet they never imagined that he did it as a Prophet by a special Commission from God; they thought he did it of himself by his own bare Authority. 3dly, It does not appear by the Text that Solomon designed, by deposing Abiathar, to fulfil that Prophecy of God. For those words, That the Word of the Lord might be fulfilled, do only show, that That was the design of Providence; a common mode of Expression. In the Hebrew it is, ad implendum sermonem: where ad, says Grotius, is only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. neque enim hoc respiciebat Solomon. So long before Grotius, the great and judicious 
(a) Quaest 31. in 3 Reg. cap. 2. Solomon non privavit Abiathar propter Prophetiam dictam contra Heli, sed ex aliis causis, ut patet ex verbis ejus: Nam dixit, Vir quidem mortis es, sed hodie non te intersiciam, & tamen referendo ad Prophetiam dictam contra Heli, non erat verum quod Abiathar esset, Vir mortis: nam licèt privari posset sacerdotio, tamen mortem (ob istam prophetiam) non merebatur.  Abulensis, a Bishop of their own Church. It is said in the Gospel of S. Matthew, that 
(b) C. 2. v. 23.  joseph came and dwelled in a City called Nazareth, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene: That the Jews 
(c) C. 27. v. 35.  crucified Christ, parting his Garments, casting Lots, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Prophet; They parted my Garments among them, etc. So S. john: The Soldiers said therefore among themselves, Let us not rent, but cast lots for it, whose it shall be; that the Scripture might be fulfilled, which saith, etc. It is said in another place of S. john, that notwithstanding all the Miracles of Christ, yet 
(d) C. 12. v. 38.  the jews believed not on him; that the Saying of Esaias the Prophet might be fulfilled, which he spoke, Lord, who hath believed our Report, etc. That 
(e) C. 18. v. 32.  when Pilate commanded the jews to take Jesus and Judge him according to their Law, they said unto him, It is lawful for us to put any man to death: That the Saying of Jesus might be fulfilled, which he spoke, signifying what death he should die. Who so very injudicious, as to infer from these places, that such was the End and Design of the Persons themselves? Yet as well may we infer, that such was here the Design of the Persons themselves, as that such was the Design of King Solomon deposing Abiathar. I shall only add, That whereas some of the jesuits do pretend to confirm their Opinion with the Authority of Theodoret and Procopius Gazaeus; those Authors are so far from thinking that King Solomon deprived Abiathar as a Prophet, that it does not appear, that they thought he had any respect to that Prophecy. They only say, That in depriving Abiathar, he was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, an Instrument (or an Asier) made use of by God for the fulfilling of his Prophecy.  
The Jesuit Becanus, not very well satisfied (as it seems) with this Answer of Bellarmin, has besides another of his own: He tells us, That if King Solomon deposed Abiathar by his Regal Authority only, and was not inspired by God, than he acted unlawfully; for as he was King (says he) he was not a lawful and a competent Judge. Here now is a Man that speaks out. This is home to our Purpose. Let our Adversaries now take what Part they please. If they grant that King Solomon did well, than the Civil Power is a Competent Judge of a Bishop, and may lawfully deprive him if he refuses to own its authority, or for any other Criminal Cause for which he may by Bishops be justly deprived. If, with the Jesuit Becanus, they say he did ill, then 'tis plain from the Scripture itself, that the whole Nation of the jews, and God himself, accepted of a Highpriest, who was put into the place of another invalidly deprived by the Civil Authority, as a true Highpriest.  
§. 4. For a great many Generations the High-priesthood continued in the Family of Zadok without the Deprivation of any. We read of no one deposed by either the Regal or any other Authority, till the time of Onias' III. Surnamed the Pious. Of him we read in the Breviary of jason of Cyrene, viz. the 
(a) C. 4.  11. of Maccabees, that he was deposed by King Antiochus Epiphanes, by the means of a Bribe which his Brother jesus (called otherwise jason) had offered for the Honour, who was thereupon placed in his room. josephus, in the 
(b) Cap. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  12th. Book of his Antiquities, says Antiochus, conferred the High-priesthood on jason, after the death of Onias. And again, in his 15th. Book he says, that jason himself was the first of all the High-priests (he means after Solomon's time) that whilst alive were deprived of their Dignity. But in this josephus was mistaken, as appears not only by the express Testimony of jason of Cyrene, but likewise by that very particular 
(c) See 2. Maccab. c. 4. v. 33, etc.  account which he gives of Onias' Death several years after the Promotion, and even after the Deprivation of jason, in the time of the Highpriest Menelaus. And josephus himself in another place, viz. in his Book 
(d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. C. 4.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, has affirmed the same thing, that Onias was deposed by the King, and jason for Money promoted to the High-priesthood. The contrary Custom of continuing the Highpriest, during life, is called by 
(a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Quanquam insolitum (says Sulpitius Severus) neque ante permissum cuiquam erat perpetuò Sacerdotio non fungi, sollicitus tamen Regis animus atque aeger avaritiâ facilè superatus est.  josephus a Law; yet of any Contention occasioned by the good and unjustly deposed Onias, not a word in any Author. On the contrary it appears, that he meekly submitted to Necessity; and we read no more of him till the time of the Highpriest Menelaus, that he reprehended that ungodly Highpriest for having embezzled the holy Vessels of the Temple, and was therefore murdered.  
§. 5. jason, after the expiration of three years, was deposed by the same Authority, and by the same means by which he had been advanced; and his younger Brother Onias, called likewise Menelaus, succeeded him. He was deposed, says josephus, through some 
* Antiq. l. 12. c. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  displeasure, which the King had conceived against him; by the means of a Bribe, says jason of Cyrene, which his Brother Menelaus had offered for the Honour. Here now is an Example for our Adversaries; but a very unhappy one. There was no Sedition occasioned by the Pious Onias; but jason, who, after he was made Highpriest, proved a very profane and ungodly Wretch, was no sooner deposed, but he raised a Sedition against his Successor. He raised a Sedition for the Dignity of the High-priesthood, says Eusebius; and josephus tells us, that the greater part of the People joined with him, to that degree, that Menelaus, with the Chief of his Adherents, was forced to flee away to Antiochus, tho' he soon returned and enjoyed the High-priesthood. You will not imagine, it was any thing of Conscience, or any sense of Religion that caused that Sedition, or that made the major part of the People declare in the beginning for jason: No certainly; That could not be, since jason himself had been advanced to that Dignity, when his Brother and Predecessor had been unjustly deposed, and that too by his procurement; especially since that Brother, who had been unjustly deposed, was still living. Tho' Menelaus was at that time a very flagitious Villain, and aught upon that account to have been opposed, yet 'twas nothing but Revenge and Resentment that excited jason; and 'twas chiefly the lewd and profane Pastimes which the People enjoyed under jason, that made 'em adhere in the beginning to him. Read the 4th. Chapter of the 2d. of Maccabees, where after a History of his excessive wickedness, as it is there termed, and an account of the Heathenish Customs to which he had debauched the People; he is styled 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  the ungracious Jason, that ungodly Wretch, and not a Highpriest. There was yet another thing, which seems to have heightened the People's aversion to Menelaus, when first he was advanced to that Dignity; and that was his cruel and bloody Disposition. He came, says the Author of the Maccabees, with the King's Mandate, bringing nothing worthy of the High-priesthood, but having the fury of a cruel Tyrant, and the rage of a Savage beast. We will leave the foeda certamina of these two Brothers, (so Sulpitius Severus calls 'em) and proceed to  
§. 5. Hyrcanus, the second of that Name, who was deprived of his High-priesthood and Kingdom by his younger Brother Aristobulus, after he had enjoyed the High-priesthood for the space of nine years. They had fought a battle; and Hyrcanus being overcome, was forced to 
(a) josephus' Antiq. l. 14. c. 1. & de bello jud. l. 1. c. 4.  resign both his Honours by a solemn League and Agreement. His Resignation was by Compulsion, and Aristobulus was looked upon by all as an Usurper. josephus affirms, that Hyrcanus had still a 
(b) De bello jud. l. 1. c. 5.  Right to the Dignity; and so it was afterwards 
(c) Ibid.  adjudged by I. Caesar; and so Hyrcanus after that 
(d) Antiq. l. 14. c. 5.  pleaded before Pompey. However, Aristobulus is owned, and is peaceably settled in his Government. Hyrcanus submits to Necessity, and lives very quietly under him. He is urged by his Friend Antipater to endeavour for a Restauration; he denies to do it; Antipater tells him, He is in danger of his Life; that the King designs to destroy him, yet nothing will persuade him. At last, being wearied by the Importunities of Antipater, and affrighted by the continual Representations made him of the danger he was in, he flies away to Aretas, a King of the Arabs, obtains of him an Army, defeats his Brother in a Battle, and besieges him in the Temple. The Siege is raised by the Authority of the Romans: Their Cause is brought before Pompey the Great, who leaves it not fully decided. Pompey having afterwards received an Affront from Aristobulus, raises a War against him, takes the City jerusalem by Storm, and 
(e) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. De'bel. jud. l. 1. c. 5. In eundem tenorem, Antiq. l. 14. c. 8.  bestows the Pontificate on Hyrcanus. This he did, says josephus, as well because of other good Offices which Hyrcanus had done him, as because he had hindered the Jews of the Country round about from defending Aristobulus against him.  
At that time that Hyrcanus, as is above said, besiege Aristobulus in that part of the City jerusalem where the Temple was built; josephus says, that the People of jerusalem went all over to the Conqueror Hyrcanus; but withal he observes, that the 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Antiq. l. 14. c. 3.  Priests would not leave their present Highpriest Aristobulus, but still adhered faithfully to him.  
It is further observable what josephus relates as happening during that Siege: For by that it may appear of what opinion both He and others were concerning those Sacrifices which were offered up to God by the Usurper Aristobulus, and how acceptable to God those Acts of Religion were, which he as Highpriest performed, tho' he came into the Office by force and usurpation, and was not accounted the 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, says josephus.  rightful Highpriest. Whilst Aristobulus, 
‖ Antiq. l. 14. c. 3.  says Josephus, was besieged in the Temple, the Feast of Unleavened Bread, which we call the Passover, being at hand, the Chief among the Jews left their Country, and fled into Egypt. Now one Onias, a just Man, and beloved of God, who had formerly, in the time of a Drought, obtained Rain by his pious Prayers, and hid himself, as perceiving a Civil War coming on: Him the Jews brought into their Camp, and required him, That as he had heretofore prevented a Famine, so he would now draw down a Curse upon Aristobulus, and all those that adhered to him. When he had long refused to do it, and at last was threatened by the Multitude, he stood in the midst of 'em, and prayed thus: O God, the King of all the World, since these, who stand here with me, are thy People, and they that are besieged are thy Priests, I beseech thee not to hearken to the Prayers of either Party against the other. After he had made this Prayer, there encompassed him round about certain Villainous Jews, and they overwhelmed him with Stones. Which cruelty God immediately revenged after this manner. Whilst Aristobulus was thus besieged, the Passover comes on; in which Feast our Custom is to honour God with many Sacrifices: Now the Besieged being destitute of Sacrifices, entreated their Countrymen without, that for Money, as much as they would desire, they would supply 'em with Victims. They demand a thousand Drachms for each Victim; which Aristobulus and the Priests agree to, and let down the Money from the Wall. But they, when they had got the Money, refused to supply 'em with Victims; and proceeded so far in Impiety, as both to violate their Faith with Men, and likewise to defraud God of the Honour's due unto him. The Priests therefore, who had been wronged, prayed to God that he would punish their Countrymen: And immediately it was done. For a vehement Storm so destroyed the Fruits of the whole Country, that a Measure of Wheat was sold for 15 Drachms.  
Perhaps it may be said, that Aristobulus was accepted as a true Highpriest; not because he was the Possessor, but because Hyrcanus (tho' by force and compulsion) had solemnly and fully resigned to him. If this be alleged, than it follows, that Hyrcanus had no Right to the High-priesthood: yet he, after he was restored by the bare Authority of the Heathen Pompey, (tho' Aristobulus was deposed 
* After he had been Highpriest 3 years and as many months.  by only the same Authority of that Conqueror) was owned again, and received as a true Highpriest by all the jews: and so he continued for the space of 
† josephus' Antiq. l. 20. c. 8.  24 years.  
True it is, that Alexander, the Son of Aristobulus, raised a War against Hyrcanus and the Romans. It is likewise true, that Aristobulus himself, having made his escape from Rome, raised another small Army, and endeavoured to re-obtain the Pontificate. But we are not to imagine, that they that joined thus with Aristobulus, and endeavoured to restore him, did therefore do so, because they thought the present Highpriest Hyrcanus not truly such. It was in this Case as usually it is in other Kingdoms: where Love, hope of Gain, and a longing after Innovation, engages turbulent Spirits against the present Establishment. josephus assures us, that they that joined with Aristobulus, were induced thereunto by the glory of his Name, the desire of Innovation, 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Antiq. l. 14. c. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  and the hopes of Gain. And that it was only Ambition, not any thing of Religion or Conscience, that made Aristobulus endeavour to recover the Government, cannot possibly be doubted by any Person of Judgement. 'Twas the King, and not the Highpriest, that raised those Commotions.  
§. 7. After the term of 24 years, Hyrcanus was again deposed by Antigonus, the younger Son of Aristobulus; and his Ears were cut off, that by that he might be made uncapable of being restored. Whether Antigonus himself took upon him the Function of the Highpriest, together with the Government, we are not well assured. But it was not long before he himself lost his life; and Herod was made King of the jews. And now we are come to a strange Scene of Tyranny; a surprising Train of unjust and tyrannical Deprivations. For the future we shall find very few High-priests, but who were deposed by the Secular Governors: And of those that were deposed, very few were deposed for any just Cause: Yet still the Successor was owned both by Priests and People; as well by the learned, the Sanhedrin, the Scribes, and the Pharisees, as by the unlearned Multitude.  
Ananelus, 
(a) Jos. Antiq. lib. 15. cap. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, says Nicephorus Patr. in Chronol. But that he was not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but both a Jew, and likewise descended from Aaron, is clear from josephus. If he had not been a descendant from Aaron, the Jews would never have owned him.  a Jew of Babylon, was made Highpriest by King Herod, in the room of either Antigonus or Hyrcanus. This Alexandra, the Daughter of Hyrcanus, the Wife of Alexander, and the King's Mother-in-law, took very ill, because he was preferred to her Son Aristobulus: She therefore wrote to Cleopatra the Queen of Egypt, and requested her to obtain of Mark Antony the High-priesthood for her Son. Upon this account, to satisfy Alexandra, and likewise his Wife Mariam, the King deposes Ananelus, and prefers Aristobulus to the Dignity. And after the Death of Aristobulus, he again restores Ananelus.  
jesus the Son of Phabes, who was made Highpriest upon the death of Ananelus, was 
* Ibid. l. 15. c. 12.  deposed by the same King Herod, and Simon the Son of Boethus succeeded him. And for what was this done? For no other reason, but because the King had a mind to Marry Simon's Daughter; and he thought the Match would seem too mean for him, unless Simon were advanced to that Honour.  
The Daughter of Simon, after she was married to the King, being suspected as engaged in a Conspiracy against him; her Father was for that 
(a) Ibid. l. 17. c. 6.  deposed. And to him succeeded Mathias, the Son of Theophilus.  
Of this Mathias it is very observable, That (as josephus relates) being polluted with an unvoluntary Uncleanness the night before the day of Expiation, 
Ibid. c. 8.  on which he was to officiate in a solemn manner, he made it known; and on that account there was consecrated a new Highpriest for that day to officiate in his stead. This, I say, is on this account very observable; because from thence it appears, That both Mathias himself, who accepted of the High-priesthood, which in justice belonged to jesus the Son of Phabes, and the great Men among the jews, who owned him as true Highpriest, were very Religious Persons, and nice Observers of all necessary Laws. He likewise was displaced by the King upon a Suspicion, that he had given encouragement to certain Zealots, who had pulled down a Golden Eagle which the King had set up over one of the Gates of the Temple. In his room the King 
(a) Ibid. c. 15.  placed joazarus, the Son of Simon Boethus. joazarus was extremely hated by all that Party, that favoured the aforesaid Zealots: They present a Petition to the Tetrarch Archelaus, the Son and Successor of King Herod, and require him in a seditious manner to displace him. But what was their Plea? Not that he was no true Highpriest. Tho' in other things they showed so much Zeal for their Laws, as even to raise a Sedition for the Vindication of 'em, and tho' their Love for the ejected Highpriest was very great: yet they allege nothing at all concerning the unlawfulness of submitting to the present Possessor. They 
(b) Ibid. c. 11.  only allege, that he was not worthy of the Honour; and desire that another more worthy, any one that Archelaus thought fit, might be named to succeed him.  
Tho' Archelaus did not hearken to what they demanded, yet after some time he 
(c) Ibid. c. 15.  deposed him upon another account; viz. because he suspected him to be somewhat concerned in the raising of a Sedition. To him succeeded his Brother Eleazar. He was likewise 
(d) Ibid.  displaced by the same Archelaus; and succeeded by jesus the Son of Sie.  
joazarus, the Son of Simon Boethus, was again restored upon the Death of jesus the Son of Sie: (So it seems; for there is no mention made, that jesus was removed:) But he was again displaced 
(e) Ibid. l. 18. c. 3.  by Quirinus, the Roman Perfect of Syria. His Crime no other, but that, upon some account incurring the People's displeasure, there had been a Sedition raised against him. In his place was substituted.  
Ananus the Son of Seth, who himself was deposed 
(f) Ibid.  by Valerius Gratus, the Roman Perfect of judea. And Ishmael the Son of Phabi, was promoted to his Dignity. Ananus flourished long after his Ejectment amongst the jews, and at the time of our Saviour's Passion was one of their Chief Priests or Rulers, under the Highpriest Caiaphas, his Son-in-law. He is mentioned in the Histories of the Gospel by by the Name of Annas.  
Ishmael the Son of Phabi was likewise removed 
(g) Ibid.  by the same Valerius Gratus, who advanced in his stead Eleazar the Son of Ananus but now mentioned.  
Him likewise after a years time he deposed, 
(h) Ibid.  and promoted Simon the Son of Camith.  
After one year he likewise removed 
(i) Ibid.  Simon, and in his place he substituted josephus, who was Sir-named Caiaphas.  
Caiaphas' was 
(k) Ibid. c. 6, & 7.  removed by Vitellius the Roman Perfect of Syria, and jonathan, another Son of Ananus, was advanced to the Honour of the High-priesthood.  
The same was likewise the Fate of jonathan: For he 
(l) Ibid. c. 7.  after some little time was removed by the same Governor, and his Brother Theophilus was promoted in his stead. He continued after that a worthy Patriot, and at last was 
(m) Antiq. l. 20. cap. 6. & de Bello jud. l. 2. c. 12.  murdered by the Roman Governor Felix.  
Theophilus was 
(b) Antiq. lib. 19 cap. 5.  displaced by King Herod Agrippa, and Simon who was surnamed Cantharas, the Son of Simon Boethus, succeeded him.  
Him Agrippa likewise 
(c) Ibid.  deposed, and promoted 
d Ibid. c. 6.  Mathias a fourth Son of Ananus, and Brother to the High-priests, Theophilus, jonathan and Eleazar. The King was desirous that jonathan should be re-invested with the Honour, as more worthy of it than Simon Cantharas: but jonathan begged to be excused, and recommended to him his Brother Mathias. By his Answer alone we might judge how far the jews were from thinking it unlawful to succeed one unjustly or arbitrarily deposed by the Civil Governor. I am obliged, says he, to your Majesty for your goodwill to me in making me the offer of so great an Honour; but I think it sufficient, that I once wore those sacred Robes; which I cannot now receive with the same Holiness as heretofore I did, since God has judged me unworthy of 'em. He adds, that, if the King required him, he would tell him who was far more worthy of the Honour than himself: That his Brother Mathias was more innocent, and free from all sort of guilt or Imputation, whom therefore he would recommend to him as fit to be preferred to the Dignity.  
Mathias was himself 
(a) Ibid. c. 7.  displaced by the same Prince; in his room there was substituted Elioneus surnamed Cantharas, the Son of Cantharas.  
Elioneus was 
* Ibid. l. 20. c. 1.  removed by Herod the Brother of King Agrippa; and to him succeeded josephus the Son of Canei or Camydus (more truly Camithus, the same I suppose with Camith above mentioned.)  
josephus was deposed 
(b) Ibid. c. 3.  by the same Herod, and succeeded by Ananias the Son of Nebedeus; he of whom we read in the 
(c) c. 23. v. 2.  Acts of the Apostles, as sitting chief Judge in the Cause of St. Paul.  
Ananias was sent 
(d) Antiq. l. 20. c. 5. & de Bello jud. l. 2. c. 11.  bound by Numidius Quadratus, the Roman Perfect of Syria, to the Emperor Claudius at Rome, there to answer for a Tumult which had been raised between the jews and Samaritans. Upon that account, I suppose, he was deposed. That he was deposed is manifest; and he 
(e) De Bello jud. l. 2. c. 17, 18.  flourished after that at jerusalem, till the beginning of the War with the Romans: at what time he was murdered by the Seditious. In his room succeeded Ishmael, 
(f) Antiq. l. 20. cap. 6.  the Son of Phabei (the same, I presume, with Phabi) promoted by King Agrippa the younger.  
He was sent by the jews Ambassador to the Emperor Nero, upon a difference which happened between them and the King. There being detained as a Hostage, the King 
(g) Ibid. l. 20. c. 7.  promoted in his stead josephus, surnamed Cabei.  
Him he likewise 
(h) Ibid.  deposed, and preferred Ananus, the Son of Ananus.  
This Ananus it was that condemned St. james, the brother of our Saviour, with others, to be stoned. Upon which account he was after three months 
(i) Ibid. c. 8.  deposed by the same Prince. He continued, after he was deposed, a very great man amongst the jews, and was one of their chief Commanders in the time of their Wars with the Romans; and was 
(k) De Bello jud. l. 2. c. 25, & 28. & l. 4. c. 5, 6, 7.  killed at last by the seditious Zealots: highly praised by josephus, as the chief of all the High-priests of that time, for his Justice, Love of his Country, and other excellent Qualities.  
jesus the Son of Damneus, who succeeded in the High-priesthood upon the ejectment of Ananus, was 
(l) Antiq. l. 20. c. 8.  deposed by the same King Agrippa the younger, and succeeded by jesus the Son of Gamaliel.  
He likewise 
(m) Ibid.  was deprived by the King, and the Honour was conferred on Mathias the Son of Theophilus. In whose time there broke out that War in which jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans.  
§. 8. This is the Account which josephus has delivered down to us, of the several Revolutions in the Jewish Pontificate, from the beginning of the Reign of King Herod. As he himself does not give us the least Hint, That he thought that they who succeeded upon an unjust or a lay-deprivation was no true Highpriest; but speaks of 'em always as as true and real High-priests as any other: so it plainly appears from him, That that was likewise the Sense of all the Nation of the jews. How arbitrarily or unjustly soever the Predecessor was deposed, both the Priests and the People submitted to the present Possessor. And He who had been unjustly deposed, tho' he came himself regularly to the Honour (which some few of 'em did,) yet raised no disturbance on the account of his Ejectment; but remained at jerusalem a Member of the Church, and peaceably communicated with his Successor in the Offices of the Temple, and the Sacrifices made to God. jesus the son of Damneus was the only Highpriest that expressed his Resentments with any thing of undecency. Of him 'tis related by josephus, that when he was deposed, his Resentment was such that it caused a great Animosity between him and his Successor, to that degree, that both going guarded by a company of audacious young men, they themselves not only proceeded to public Revile, but their Attendants likewise threw Stones at one another. This jesus did, as is manifest, not for any thing of Conscience, but purely through Ambition and Regret: for he himself had been promoted to the High-priesthood when another had been as unjustly deposed.  
§. 9 I must not forget to mention that in the time of the Wars with the Romans, that wicked and seditious Party, who called themselves the Zealots, having fortified themselves in the Temple, and excluded Mathias the Highpriest, together with all the true Patriots, who were by far the majority, chose by lot one Phannias, a wretched Country-fellow, for Highpriest; pretending (though falsely) that that was the ancient method of Election, and that therefore Mathias was not regularly constituted. This was highly resented, and very deservedly, by all the orderly Party; both the Priests and the People were extremely provoked at so daring an Extravagance. How extremely flagitious and wicked those Zealots were, who took upon 'em to tyrannize, and exclude Mathias and the much major part of the People, we may learn from josephus, throughout his whole History of the jewish Wars: and how highly all presented that audacious Fact of theirs in pretending of themselves to elect ● Highpriest, and such a one too as was altogether unworthy, the same Author 
(a) De Bello I●d. l. 4. c. 11.  largely relates. So great an Impiety, says he, was to them a mere Sport and Pastime. But the other Priests, who saw afar off the Law ridiculed, could not refrain from Tears, and grievously lamented for the Dissolution of the Honour of the Priesthood. The People could not bear with so daring an Action, but attempted forthwith to dissolve the Tyranny, etc. It is worthy our observation, that josephus, neither in the words which he lays down as his own, nor yet in that Speech which he makes the famous Patriot Ananus speak to the People upon this occasion to excite 'em to the Vindication of their Laws, mentions any thing at all of Mathias: he does not insist on the Injury done to him; he only complains, that a very unworthy Person was constituted Highpriest, and that by such as had no authority to make any Highpriest, a tumultuous Part of the Rabble. I observe moreover from this Example of Resentment, that the jews, if they had been of Opinion, That a Highpriest was no true Highpriest, because put into the place of another deposed by the Lay-power, would not have failed to express their dislike of one so constituted: since here, in this Case, they express their Abhorrence with so much Zeal and Concern. From thence, I say, it appears, That they thought they ought to submit to a worthy Person put into the High-priesthood by the Prince, altho' the Predecessor was unjustly deposed and still living; tho' they thought they ought not to submit to a Person unworthy, whom a part of the Rabble should advance. Hear Ananus (or josephus again, in his Name) expressing his Abhorrence of the violation of the Laws in this latter Case, in his Speech to the People. The People, says josephus, being backward in their endeavour to suppress the Seditious, because they looked upon 'em to be impregnable, Ananus stood in the midst of 'em, and looking often towards the Temple, with his eyes full of Tears, he thus spoke: Indeed, says he, 'tis my duty rather to die, than to see the House of God so extremely profaned by the feet of flagitious Villains: But yet I live arrayed with the Sacerdotal Vestment, and called by the most holy and venerable of all Names. I seem to be desirous of Life, and do not prefer a glorious Death. If I must be alone, and you leave me, I alone will give up my Soul for the Cause of God.   

CHAP. III.  
That our Saviour himself, and his Apostles, acknowleged and communicated with those High-priests, who were put into the places of others unjustly deposed by the Civil Authority, as true High-priests. Mr. Selden's Conjecture, That in the Histories of the New Testament, as often as there is mention made of the Highpriest, is to be understood not the Highpriest, properly so called, but the Prince of the Sanedrin, confuted. A Reply to an Answer of our Adversaries, concerning the Reason why the Jews, our Saviour, and the Apostles submitted to the present Possessor.  
WE come now to the Second Part of our Historical Inquiry; to show, That not only the jews, but likewise our Saviour himself, and his Apostles, acknowleged and submitted to the present High-priests, tho' put into the Places of others unjustly deposed by the Civil Authority. Which Practice of theirs is a Rule to us. First of all, I observe, That tho' Caiaphas, who enjoyed the High-priesthood all the time of our Saviour's Preaching, was advanced upon the unjust Deprivation of another; and altho' for many Successions there was no Highpriest but what had been so promoted; and the jews, both the Priests and the People, had all along acknowleged their Authority and the Validity of their Sacrifices, yet our Saviour never gave the least Hint concerning the Illegality of those High-priests. If he had not thought those High-priests as true High-priests as the rest, he would doubtless have took some occasion to express his dislike of so great a profanation; especially since he knew what an Influence this Example and Practice of the jews must of course have upon his own Followers in future Ages in relation to their Bishops. Had our Saviour intended, that a Bishop in those Circumstances should not be acknowleged by his Followers; it is highly probable, that he would have given us an Instruction to the contrary, by expressing some dislike of so great a Profanation of the High-priesthood. Secondly, I observe, That our Saviour does not only not reprove the jews for their owning those High-priests; but, he himself likewise communicated all along with 'em, and expressly owns their Authority. When he was before the Highpriest 
(a) S john c. 18. v. 22.  Caiaphas, and was struck by an Officer for answering the Highpriest in a manner that seemed not agreeable, and was asked how he dared to answer the Highpriest so; tho' that was a very fair occasion, yet he does not deny his Authority, but expressly owns it by this Reply: If I have spoken Evil, bear witness of the Evil; but if well, why smitest thou me? Thirdly, I observe, That tho' Ananias the Highpriest had been advanced in the same manner with Caiaphas; viz. in the room of another whom the Civil Governor had arbitrarily deposed; yet S. Paul, the Apostle, expressly owns his Authority, and acknowleges he was God's Highpriest. When through Ignorance (according to some Commentators) or Inconsiderateness he had spoken revilingly to him, and was asked how he dared to revile him, being God's Highpriest, he approves of the Title that was given him, and reputes of his speaking so rashly: 
* Acts 23.5.  I wist not, Brethren, that it was the Highpriest: For it is written, Thou shalt not speak Evil of the Ruler of thy People.  
§. 2. It may possibly be alleged in reply to what has been urged, That our Saviour and S. Paul did not own the Authority of Caiaphas and Ananias, as High-priests properly so called, but only as they were Magistrates and Princes at that time of their great Council the Sanedrin. And it is indeed the Conjecture of our famous and learned Mr. Selden, that in all places of the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles, where there is mention made of the Highpriest, we are not to understand the Highpriest, properly so called, but the chief Governor of the Sanedrin; and where there is mention of two High-priests together, we ought to understand the two chief Rulers of the Sanedrin; viz. the Prince and the Father of the Sanedrin, as they were wont to be called. The full of his Conjecture is this; That in those times when the jews were governed by Roman Prefects, the Highpriest, properly so called, had not, as Highpriest, any Power or Authority in judicial Matters: That, if he had any, 'twas only by virtue of his Office in the Sanedrin, as Prince or Father of that Council. And hence, says he, it was, that tho' Caiaphas was the only Highpriest, properly so called, when our Saviour began to preach his Gospel; yet 'tis said in S. Luke, that Annas and Caiaphas were then the High-priests. Annas, says Mr. Selden, is there mentioned first, because he was at that time the Prince of the Sanedrin, and Caiaphas only the Father. After that, at the time of our Saviour's Passion, Caiaphas was the Prince, and Anna's only the Father: And therefore when our Saviour was first led to Annas; he sent him away to Caiaphas as his Superior. And on this account likewise it is said in the Gospel of S. john, that Caiaphas was the Highpriest that same year. After that again, Annas was the Prince, and Caiaphas only the Father: And hence it is said in the Acts; And Annas the Highpriest, and Caiaphas, and john, and Alexander, tho' Caiaphas was at that time in the proper and original sense the (only) Highpriest.  
To this I answer; First, That if we granted Mr. Selden's Conjecture to be true, tho' we could not conclude by the words above mentioned, that our Saviour owned Caiaphas as a true Highpriest, properly so called; yet still our Observation would hold good, That our Saviour himself communicated with the Highpriest of that Age, and does not any where hint, That they that in his time Officiated in the Temple as High-priests, were not truly High-priests. And it would however appear, that S. Paul acknowleged the reality of the then High-priests, so called in the proper and original Sense; since he owned himself in an Error, as soon as he was told, that the Person whom he had reviled was GOD's Highpriest. For by the Title of GOD's Highpriest the Ecclesiastical Office was pointed out to him.  
Secondly, I deny Mr. Selden's Conjecture to be true. And against it I offer these following Considerations. First, Neither josephus, nor any other Jewish Writer, does any where tell us, that the High-priests, properly so called, were deprived by the Romans of their Power and Authority in 
* Excepting Capital Causes; which were prohibited by the Romans, not only to the Highpriest properly so called, but likewise to the Sanedrin itself. For it was not lawful for the jews, when under the Government of the Romans, to put any man to death.  judicial Matters, and confined to the Offices of the Temple. Mr. Selden does not pretend to the Authority of any Writer. And josephus, had there been any such thing, would scarce have falled to have mentioned it; especially since he mentions, that in such and such Parts of judea there were Courts of judicature erected by the Romans. Secondly, josephus is so far from warranting any such Opinion, that, on the contrary, he speaks throughout his whole History of the High-priests, properly so called, as of Persons of great Power and Authority in Civil Affairs. What he says of Ananus the younger is very express. Having said that the King had deprived josephus Cabei of the High-priesthood, and substituted in his place Ananus the Son of Ananus; he immediately adds, 
† Antiq. l. 20. c. 8.  The younger Ananus, who was constituted, as we said, Highpriest, was a man of a rigid and severe Temper, by Sect a Sadducee; which sort of men is the most severe of all Jews in Judicial Matters. Being of that disposition, he took an opportunity, after Festus (the governor's) death, before (his Successor) Albinus was arrived in Judea, to call a Council of the judges, and commanding James, the Brother of jesus, to be brought before him, he condemned him, together with some others, and delivered 'em to the People to be stoned to death. This thing extremely displeased all those of the City that were well disposed and zealous for the Laws; and they privately sent Messengers to the King to entreat him to lay his Commands upon Ananus not to do the like for the future, it being a thing that he ought not to have done. Some moreover went to meet Albinus as he came from Alexandria, and suggested to him, That it was not lawful for Ananus, without his Consent, to call a Council, (That it was not lawful for the jews, without the particular Consent of the Governor, to sit Judges in a Capital Cause.) Hereupon Albinus wrote angrily to the Highpriest, and threatened him for what he had done. And after three months' King Agrippa deprived him for that Fact of the High-priesthood, and bestowed the Dignity on Jesus the Son of Damnaeus. Here seems to be a plain Intimation, that the Highpriest, as such, had authority in Civil Affairs; tho' neither he, nor any other of the jews, might, without the Consent of the Roman Governor, sit Judge in a Capital Cause. Thirdly, It is likewise confirmed by that frequent and continual Changing of the Highpriest under the Romans. For if the High-priests, properly so called, were, as such, concerned about the Sacrifices only, not at all in Matters of Government, how could they so frequently come under the Displeasure of the supreme Civil Governor? Why so frequently turned out of their Places? Fourthly, When S. Paul was told that the Person, whom he had reviled, was God's Highpriest; that is, Highpriest properly so called; he straight infers, That then he was the Ruler of the People. Fifthly, Those difficult places of Scripture, on which Mr. Selden's Conjecture is bottomed, may well admit of another Explication.  
I am so far from denying that the two chief Rulers, the Prince and the Father of the Sanedrin, might commonly be honoured with the Title of High-priests, that I almost persuade myself, that in those later Times that Title was common to all those of the Sacerdotal Order who were Members of the Sanedrin. But on this I do not rely. I have one thing more to offer, to account for those many High-priests which are mentioned as flourishing at the same time. Which is this: That the 24 
* With this Notion agrees very well that Relation in josephus concerning the High-priests in the time of King Agrippa, Antiq. l. 20. c. 6. Et ipsi summi Pontifices dissidere caeperunt à Sacerdotibus & primatibus Hierosolymitanorum Civium— In tantum autem exarsit summorum Pontificum impudentia, ut anderent servos suos in areas mittere, qui auferrent debitas Sacerdotibus decimas, aliquótque pauperiores è sacerdotum ordine alimentorum inepiâ fame deficerent.  Chief Men or Heads of the 24 Sorts or Families of the Priests, into which it is said, in the first of Chronicles, that King David distributed the Priests, were wont to be peculiarly honoured with the Title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or High-priests. As all in general were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Priests; so 'twas natural to distinguish the Heads of the several Classes from the inferior Priests whom they governed, by the Title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, High or Chief Priests. That 
† De hoc vide Lightfooti Heb. & Talmud. exercitat. in S. Lucam, c. 1. v. 5.  this Division of the Priests was continued to our Saviour's time, appears from the first Chapter of S. Luke, where 'tis said, That Zacharias, the Father of S. john Baptist, was a Priest, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of the Course of ●bia; and 'tis added: And it came to pass, that while he executed the Priest's Office in the Order of his Course; according to the Custom of the Priest's Office, his Lot was to burn incense when he went into the Temple of the Lord. This is plainly according to the Order and Division made by King David, in the 24th of 1 Chron. where the Household of Abia is mentioned as the 8th. principal Household of the Priests. Neither ought it to be objected, that in that place of S. Luke, Zacharias is called only Priest, not High or Chief priest: For even the Highpriest himself, properly so called, is oftentimes called by the bare Title of Priest.  
That in those days there were many at the same time entitled High-priests, is apparent from a great many Places both of the New Testament, and likewise of josephus. That those learned Men are mistaken, who think that those many High-priests who are mentioned by josephus, and in the New Testament, as flourishing at the same time, were only the Expontifices, i. e. those who had formerly been High-priests, and were then deprived of their Dignity, but not of the Title; That that, I say, is a Mistake, is plain from many places of josephus. For he often calls those Men High-priests, who, 'tis certain, had never been High-priests properly so called. In his Hist. De Bello jud. l. 4. c. 12. 
‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  The most approved, says he, of the High-priests, jesus the Son of Gamala, and Ananus the Son of Ananus. The same jesus the Son of Gamala, is again entitled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Highpriest, Ibid. c. 6. & ult. & l. 7. c. 29. for he and Ananus are the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there spoken of; yet he had never been Highpriest properly so called. That he was not the same with jesus the Son of Gamaliel (as some may be apt to imagine from the Likeness of the Names) is apparent from 
* P. 1013. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Iosephus' Life, where Gamala and Gamaliel are mentioned together as different Men. In the same Book (viz. the Life of josephus) Simon the Son of Gamaliel, is said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, one of the High-priests. So again, de Bel. jud. l. 2. c. 42. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, jesus the Son of Sappha, one of the High-priests. Yet 'tis certain, that neither of these had been Highpriest properly so called. Again, l. 7. c. 4. 
* See the Words in the following Paragraph.  our Author josephus calls himself, and one jesus (the Son of Thebuthi) High-priests. That in that place by josephus and jesus the High-priests, he means himself and jesus the Son of Thebuthi; I gather from hence, That in that place he speaks of those jews who went over to the Romans in the time of the Wars; and says, that josephus and jesus the High-priests were two of 'em. And that he himself and jesus the Son of Thibuthi (who were both Priests) went over to the Romans, he mentions in the Course of his History, which he does not do of any other josephus or jesus. In the same place he mentions Mathias the Highpriest, who was killed by Simon the Son of Geiora: And the same he mentions again, l. 6. c. 33. where he tells us, 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, l. 6. c. 33.  That he was the Son of Boethus: He was therefore distinct from both those Matthias' who had been High-priests, properly so called.  
There are other learned Men who are of Opinion, That the Sons of the High-priests were wont to be honoured with that Title; and that thence it came to pass, that many High-priests are said to be at the same time. But this Opinion I can likewise confute by an Observation out of josephus. It is the place already quoted where he mentions those High-priests, etc. who went over to the Romans. The Words are these: 
‖ De Bel. Jud. l. 7. c. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (Sic Cod. MS. Bigotii Ruffini Versioni consonus) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  There were some (says he) that took their Opportunity, and went over to the Romans: Amongst them there were two High = priests, Josephus and Jesus; and some the Sons of High = priests, as the three Sons of Ishmael, who was beheaded at Cyrene, and four Sons of Mathias, and one of that other Mathias, whom Simon the Son of Geïora put to death. Besides them, there went over with the High-priests many other Persons of Quality. I observe, that in this Place the High-priests, whether properly or improperly so called, are by that Title distinguished from their Sons. Their Sons therefore were not of course called High-priests. It must therefore be some particular Station that distinguished 'em.  
According to this Notion which I have laid down concerning the Plurality of High-priests, I interpret that Text of the Acts: And Annas and Caiaphas, and john and Alexander, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and all the High-priests or Heads of the several Classes of the Priests (who doubtless were all Members of the Sanedrin) were gathered together at jerusalem; taking 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the same fence, as when Plato says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and as Cicero takes familia, when he says Philosophorum familia. These things I leave to the Consideration of the Learned. Let us now proceed, and see what other Explications the aforesaid Places of Scripture do admit of.  
1. The High-priests (properly so called) in the time of the Romans, were not only very frequently displaced, but (as it is above observed) those two High-priests, who immediately preceded Caiaphas, had been each of 'em deposed after the expiration of one single year; and many of the others were permitted to govern no longer than that time. This I take to have been the occasion of that Expression in S. john, That 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. c. 11. v. 49.51. etc. 18. v. 13.  Caiaphas was Highpriest for that year. Tho' he knew, that Caiaphas had enjoyed the High-priesthood both for some years before, and likewise for many years after; yet he chooses to conform his Expression to the common Mode. I might offer likewise this Conjecture, That tho' Caiaphas held the High-priesthood much more than a year, yet his Power and Authority was only annual, and renewed to him every year. This Conjecture may receive a Confirmation from that Tradition of the ancient Rabbis in their 
† Quoted by Selden de Success. in Pontiff. p. 168.  Gemara; who speaking of the Times of the Hasmonei, tell us, that in those days the Highpriest was changed every year. Which tho' it be not true of those Times, yet it is not improbable but that it might be grounded on this, That a little after, under the Romans, at least for some time, there was some such thing; if not always an annual Change, yet an annual Confirmation.  
2. When 'tis said in S. Luke, that the Word of God came to john in the time of Annas and Caiaphas the High-priests: And again in the Acts; and Annas the Highpriest, and Caiaphas, and john, and Alexander, etc. In both places Annas is first mentioned, and in the latter he alone is called Highpriest; for no other reason, but because of his great Power and Authority, because he was an Ancient, and a more famous Man, had been formerly Highpriest himself properly so called, was at that time the Father-in-law of Caiaphas, and his great Director and Guide. And that this was the only Reason, we may gather from the Scripture itself: For 'tis said, that, when our Saviour was seized, he was carried before Annas as a Magistrate; and why before Annas? The reason is there given: 
‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. c. 18. v. 13.  Because he was the High-priest's Father-in-law: As much as if it had been said, That therefore he was carried before Annas, because he, as being the High-priest's Father-in-law, was of very great Power and Authority. That it was an usual thing amongst the jews to mention an inferior Highpriest improperly so called, before the superior so called in the proper sense, and that too without any respect to any superiority on the account of some other Station, appears moreover from a certain Place in josephus. 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. De Bel. Jud. l. 2. c. 11.  Quadratus, says he, the Roman Perfect, sent two of the most powerful, who were likewise High-priests, Jonathan and Ananias; and Ananus Ananias ' s Son, and other noble Jews to Caesar. Ananias there mentioned, in the latter place, was at that time Highpriest properly so called, as appears from the same 
† Antiq. l. 20. c. 3. & 5.  Author; and jonathan was one that had formerly enjoyed that Honour. That jonathan was not there mentioned before Ananias, because he was his Superior in some other Station (suppose as Prince of the Sanedrin) I infer from hence, that in another Place where josephus speaks of the same thing, there is no mention at all made of Him, but only of Ananias, who was Highpriest properly so called. 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Antiq. l. 20. c. 5.  He sent Ananias the Highpriest, and Ananus the Captain, bound to Rome, there to answer before Caesar for what had been done. Another Example of this nature we have in the Scripture itself, where Zadok the inferior is mentioned before Abiathar the superior Highpriest: 
† 1 Chron. XV. 11.  And David called for Zadok and Abiathar the High-priests. Hence some have imagined that Zadok even at that time was superior to Abiathar. But the reason why he is first mentioned, is, Because by being afterwards placed in the room of Abiathar, and by being the first Highpriest of the Temple, and by having his Posterity established in the High-priesthood, he was at that time, when that Book was written, much more famous than Abiathar.  
§. 3. To what has been said concerning our Saviour and his Apostles, that they acknowleged and communicated with the High-priests of that Age as true High-priests; I add, that it appears moreover from 
* C. XI. v. 51.  S. john, that Caiaphas was accepted and owned by God himself. And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the Highpriest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all, nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not. And this spoke he not of himself: but being High = priest that year, he prophesied that jesus should die for that nation, etc. It appears from these words, both that S. john owned him to be a true Highpriest, and that as High = priest, he received from God the Power of Prophesying.  
§. 4. I shall here, for the close of all, take notice of an Answer which some of our Adversaries have been pleased to make, when urged with these Examples of the jews, our Saviour, and his Apostles. Upon this account, say they, the Nation of the jews, our Saviour, and his Apostles, submitted to the present Possessor tho' put into the place of another unjustly deposed by the Secular Authority, because the Temple being in the power of the Secular Magistrate, they could not perform the more Solemn Acts of their Religion, unless they accepted of that Highpriest whom the Secular Magistrate had set over the Temple. To this I answer, That if they had looked upon the present Possessor to be no true Highpriest, their being confined to the Temple of jerusalem, could not have been any inducement to 'em to submit themselves to him, and to communicate with him in the Sacrifices which he offered. If the Secular Magistrate would shut up their Temple, they were not obliged to have any Sacrifices, or any Highpriest at all: And, because they have now no Temple, they have therefore no Priests or Sacrifices. So, if they had not been permitted to offer up their Sacrifices by a Highpriest duly qualified, they would not have thought themselves obliged to offer any Sacrifices at all, any more than they would, if he that was their Governor, should have kept all lawful Sacrifices from 'em, and allowed 'em only Swine. And how can we imagine, that, if God had not looked upon those High-priests to be true and real High-priests, he would ever have accepted of the Sacrifices which they offered, or have sent down upon 'em, as High-Priests, his Spirit of Prophecy? If a Swine had been offered, would God have accepted that Sacrifice because the Civil Governor would permit no other to be offered?   

CHAP. IU.  
That the Ancient Christians submitted all along to such Bishops (if accounted Orthodox) as were put into the places of others deposed by the Secular Power, though never so unjustly. No Examples, either for or against us, in the three first Centuries, all the Emperors being then Heathens. The Example of Felix II. Bishop of Rome, though put into the place of Liberius, unjustly deposed by the bare Authority of the Emperor Constantius, and against Liberius' consent, yet he's owned by all that accounted him Orthodox, by the Roman Clergy; among them, by the famous Damasus, who was afterwards Pope. He is owned as Metropolitan by the Bishops of the District of Rome. His Ordinations are allowed of as valid, by even his Adversary Liberius. He has been all along owned by the Church, as a Saint, and true Pope.  
WHAT was the Practice of the jews, our Saviour, and the Apostles in relation to the High-priests, who were put into the places of others, unjustly deposed by the Civil Authority, that they all along owned 'em as true High-priests, and that God himself approved of 'em, we have shown in the two foregoing Chapters. I come now to show, in the third place, That the same was the Practice of the Ancient Christians throughout all Ages; (I mean, the generality of 'em in every particular Age) with respect to their Bishops, provided only, that they thought 'em upon no other account justly exceptionable.  
For the three first Ages the Emperors were all Heathens, and if they deposed any Bishops, they did it to destroy Christianity, and all Bishops in general: It is not therefore to be expected, that the three first Ages should afford us any Examples. But as they afford us no Examples, so neither can our Adversaries produce any one single Example of those Ages, that makes for their Cause. We can say (says our Adversary, the Learned Vindicator) that even in the Age of St. Cyprian, it is very notorious, that they then owned no such Power of the Secular Magistrate to deprive Bishops of their purely Spiritual Power; and that the Church, as a Society distinct from the State, subsisted on their not owning it, even as to a deprivation of their particular Districts and Jurisdictions. It is notorious, and as notorious as any one Tradition of the Catholic Church in those Ages, (not excepting that of the Canon of the New Testament itself) that Christians then, and not only then, but in all the former Persecutions that had been from the times of the Apostles to that very Age, did own themselves bound to adhere to their Bishops, when it was notorious withal, that those Bishops were set up and maintained against the consent of the Civil Magistrate. It is as notorious also, that this Adherence of theirs was not only matter of Fact (which is all our Adversaries pretend here) but a Duty owned by them as obliging in Conscience, and as the Result of Principles. Again, says the Vindicator: Till our Adversaries can disarm us of the Advantage we have from the Doctrine of the Catholic Church, signified on occasion of these earliest Instances of Schism, in S. Cyprian' s Age, their Author's Collection of later Instances, were it never so pertinent to their purpose, can do them no Service. Should a Person, unacquainted with the Histories and Writers of those Times, read what the Vindicator has here so positively asserted, he could not but conclude, that the three first Ages were full of Examples against us. But they that are not utterly Strangers to the Practice and the Histories of those Ages, know very well, that all that the Vindicator lays down, is unworthy of so learned a Man; either utterly untrue, or not in the least to his Purpose. That the Christians of those Ages did not own any Power in the Secular Magistrate to deprive Bishops of their purely Spiritual Power, is what we never denied. That they ever disowned the Power of the Secular Magistrate to deprive a Bishop of his particular District, if he should refuse to acknowledge the Authority of that Magistrate; or if upon any other Civil account he deserved to be deprived, our Adversaries cannot demonstrate. But it is not now our Business to inquire concerning that. We are only at present to inquire, Whether ever they refused to submit to the present Possessor, because his Predecessor was unjustly deposed by the Secular Power. That they were wont to adhere to their Bishops, tho' set up and maintained against the Consent of the Civil Magistrate, we acknowledge. But what is that to our Adversaries Purpose? If they still adhered to their Bishops, when the persecuting Emperors endeavoured to root out Christianity by driving away the Bishops, what is that to the Case now before us? Should our Magistrates, like the Persecutors of those Ages, endeavour to destroy Christianity, by depriving us of our Bishops, and by suffering none to be substituted in their places; then those Bishops would be our only Bishops, and as such we should still adhere to 'em. If in those Ages the Emperors had only deposed such Bishops as would not own their Authority, or as otherwise deserved to be deprived, and had suffered other Persons, as worthy, to be put into their Places, who can doubt but that the Christians of those Ages would have done as we now do, as was done in the very next Age, and as the jews had all along done? I shall answer all that the Vindicator has said, or ever will be able to say, concerning the Practice of those Ages, with this Challenge,  
That he show me any one single Instance of a Bishop disowned by the Church in those three first Centuries, for being put into the place of another deposed by the Civil Authority. If he cannot do that: I shall only desire him to produce the Authority of any one single Writer of those Ages, that directly makes to this purpose, That a Bishop so constituted ought not, upon that account, to be owned. Till that be done, whatsoever he is pleased to allege, I shall only say this of him: Magna dicit, sed nihil probat.  
§. 2. The first Instance of an Orthodox Bishop, put into the place of another Orthodox Bishop deposed by the Civil Authority, is that of Felix II. Bishop of Rome: who in the Year 
* Liberius was banished Arbitione & Lolliano Coss. says Sulpitius Severus, Hist. Sacr. lib. 2. cap. 55. It appears likewise from other Authorities, that it was on the year 355.  CCCLU. was put Into the place of Liberius, deposed by the Emperor Constantius. That Liberius was deposed and banished by the bare Authority of the Emperor, without any pretence to a Synod, and that too very unjustly; for no other Reason, but because he was Orthodox, and refused to comply with him in subscribing to the Condemnation of S. Athanasius, Archbishop of Alexandria, is manifest, beyond all doubt, from the Testimonies of all Historians, 
(a) l. 2. c. 37.  Socrates, 
(b) l. 4. c. 11.  Sozomen, 
(c) l. 2. c. 16. & 17.  Theodores, 
(d) Apolog. ad Const. & Epist. and Solit. p. 834, 835.  S. Athanasius himself, 
(e) Hist. l. 15. c. 8.  Ammianus Marcellinus, and 
(f) Libellus Synodicus, c. 51. Marcell. and Faustinus Praef. ad libel. Prec. Pontifical.  others.  
Felix, who was put into his place, tho' he was rejected by the much greater number of the Laity of Rome, because he was Ordained by the Arians; and because he was thought to favour that Party, yet by all such as were satisfied that he was really Orthodox, was owned and received, without any Regard had to the Lay and unjust Deprivation of Liberius. Theodoret tells us, that, when he was at Church, there were none of the People of Rome would go into it. But what does he say was the reason? It was not because Liberius had been deposed only by the Civil Authority, but because he communicated with the Arians. After the great Liberius, says he, there was Ordained one of his Deacons, named Felix, who indeed had continued firm in the Faith of the Nicene Fathers; 
(g) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  yet with those that endeavoured to subvert it, he freely Communicated: And on that account there were none of the Inhabitants of Rome would go into the Church when he was there. Should we grant what Theodoret says, that none of the Inhabitants of Rome would communicate with him: Yet this at least we have gained by his Testimony, that they would not have refused, if he had not communicated with Heretics. That the reason of the People's refusing to submit to Pope Felix, was, because they thought him a Heretic, is expressly asserted by Freculphus Bishop of Lisieux, who flourished in the Year 840. Liberius 
(h) Cognoverat etiam Liberius quod Felicis illius successoris, clerus & populus urbis communionem velut Haeretici declinarent, ejúsque solenniis nequaquam interessent. Chron. Tom. 2. l. 4. c. 4. , says he, knew that the Clergy and the People of the City declined the Communion of his Successor Felix, as being a Heretic. If Freculphus did not write this from some ancienter Historian, (as indeed he could not read so concerning the Clergy, for that is very false, as will by and by appear,) then by that Conjecture it appears, that he did not think there was any other good Reason for which they might separate from him. It appears likewise by the Testimony even of S. Athanasius, that the reason of the People's Aversion to Felix, was, Because he was put in by the Heretics, and was himself thought one. 
(a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Epist. ad Solitar. p. 861.  But the People, says he, well knowing the wickedness of the Heretics, did not suffer 'em (Felix and his Ordainers) to enter into their Churches, but separated from their Communion. That S. Athanasius thought Felix a Heretic, is a thing not at all to be wondered at: For he knew nothing of him, and had never heard of him, but as put by the Arians into Liberius' place. And therefore it was natural for him to think him, as the People of Rome did, one of that Party.  
But tho' the Generality of the People were so far possessed with Prejudice against him, through the great and extraordinary 
(b) Ammianus Marcel. says, That the People burned with the love of Liberius; (ejus amore stagrabat) to that degree, that they that were to carry him away, dared not attempt it in the daytime, but were forced to do it at midnight; and even at that time they could not do it without a great deal of difficulty.  Affection which they had for Liberius, as not to be capable of being convinced, but that he must needs be an Arian: Yet the Clergy of the City of Rome knew him to be throughly Orthodox, and accordingly received him for their Bishop. Let us hear what the Presbyters Marcellinus and Faustinus say of it. 
(c) Sed co die quo Liberius in exilium proficiscebatur, Clerus omnis, i. e. Presbyteri & Archidiaconus Felix, & ipse Damasus Diaconus, & cuncta Ecclesiae Officia, omnes pariter, praesente populo Romano, sub jurejurando firmaverunt, se vivente Liberio Pontificem alterum nullatenus habituros. Sed Clerus contra fas, quod minimè decebat (this they say as the inveterate Enemies of Damasus, who was one of that Clerus) cum summo perjurii seclere Felicem Archidiaconum ordinatum in locum Liberii susceperunt. Praefat. ad Libellum Precum.  The same day, say they, that Liberius went away into banishment, all the Clergy, that is, the Presbyters, and the Archdeacon Felix, and Damasus Liberius ' s Deacon, and all that bare Office in the Church, with one accord in the presence of the People obliged themselves by an Oath, not to accept of any other Bishop as long as Liberius was living. But the Clergy, notwithstanding their Oath, accepted of Felix the Archdeacon, when Ordained in the room of Liberius. Let us likewise hear S. Jerome concerning the same Matter. 
(d) Liberio in exilium ob fidem truso, omnes Cleri●● juraverunt ut nullum al●●● sis●iper●nt, ●erum quum Felix ab Ar●●is fuissit in Sacerdotium subslitu●●, plurimi p●jeraverunt, & post ●m●um cu● Felice ejecti sunt, qu● Lib●rius tidy victus exilii, & in haeretica pravitate subscriben● Roman quasi victointraverat. Chron. ad ●● 350.  Liberius, says he, being driven into Banishment on the account of his Faith, all the Clergy engaged themselves by an Oath not to receive any other Bishop. But when Felix was Ordained their Bishop, the greatest part of 'em broke their Oaths, and were after a years time ejected together with Felix; because Liberius, to free himself from Banishment, had subscribed to the Heresy of the Arians, and had entered Rome as a Conqueror. 'Twas this general Compliance of the Clergy that excited the angry Laity to violate those Immunities and Privileges which had formerly been granted the Clergy of Rome. This occasioned a new Law for the Confirmation of those Immunities and Exemptions, to secure the Clergy of that City from Indignities offered 'em by the Laity. Which Law is now extant in the Theodosian 
† lib. 16. tit. 2. leg. 14.  Code, directed by the Emperor Constantius to Pope Felix. From these Relations of S. Jerome, and the Presbyters Marcellinus and Faustinus, there are three Things to be observed. 1. That the Clergy obliged themselves by an Oath not to accept of any other Bishop whilst Liberius was living. Now what need had they to enter into such an engagement, if, in their Opinions, and according to the Principles of those Times, Whosoever should be put into Liberius' place whilst alive, would on that account be no Bishop? They knew of no such Doctrine. 2. That tho' they had took an Oath, and tho' Felix was Ordained by the Arians, and tho' their Aflection for Liberius was great, tho' all these things concurred to oblige 'em not to receive Felix for their Bishop; yet because they knew him to be truly Orthodox, and no promoter of the Arian Interest, as they expected he would be whom the Arians should Ordain in Liberius' place, they thought themselves obliged to act contrary to the Oath they had taken, and to acknowledge him as their Bishop. 'Twas Orthodoxy they had regard to, not by whom he was Ordained, or in whose place he was substituted. Their Love for Liberius was inferior to their Love of the Church. And as for their Oath; when they took it, they did it for the security of the Orthodox Faith: When they saw that such a one was Ordained, as they did not expect, one whom they well knew to be no promoter of the Arian Belief, they thought it no longer obliged 'em. 'Tis observable, in the Third place, That as almost all the Clergy submitted to Felix, as their Bishop; so after he was expelled, they still adhered to him in opposition to Liberius. This is clear not only by the Testimony of S. Jerome, who says they were ejected together with Felix; but likewise by the more express words of Marcellinus and Faustinus. Here possibly it may be objected: If the Clergy thought themselves in Conscience obliged to submit to the present Possessor, because he was Orthodox, Why did they not leave Felix, and return again to Liberius, when he was again the Possessor? The Reason is plain. 'Twas because Liberius, in the time of his Banishment, had subscribed to the Arians; and they looked upon him as no longer an Orthodox Bishop. That Liberius did so, is certain: For tho' some of the Greek Writers, as Socrates and Theodoret, do not seem to have known any thing of it; and tho' others amongst the Latins, as Sulpitius Severus and Phaebadius, make no mention of it; yet 'tis positively asserted by S. Jerome in the Words above cited, and 
(a) De Scriptor. Eccles. in Fortunatiano.  elsewhere; as likewise by 
(b) Ad Constantion Imp.  S. Hilary, 
(c) Hist. l. 4. c. 3.  Philostorgius, 
(d) l. 4. c. 15.  Sozomen, and 
(e) Epist. ad Solit. p. 837.  S. Athanasius. And that indeed was the Reason why Felix was turned out, and he again restored. For eight years together they adhered to Felix, in opposition to Liberius; i. e. during all the Life of Felix; for 
(f) Marcel. & Faustinus in Praefat. ad Libellum Precum.  so long Felix lived after Liberius was restored, tho' some say he died in a short time after his Ejectment. After Felix's Death, being by that time better satisfied concerning Liberius' Faith; that tho' he had apostatised, by subscribing to the Arians, yet now again he was Orthodox, they reunite themselves to him. He pardons them for their breaking their Oath (as he called it) they him for his Apostasy.  
It is very remarkable, that the famous Damasus, who afterwards was himself Pope of Rome, was one of those of the Clergy that submitted and adhered to Felix. At that time that Liberius was banished, he was his Deacon, and for some time he accompanied him in his Banishment: But tho' he loved him so well, and tho' he himself had been sworn with the rest of the Clergy, he left him however, and returned to Rome, and there submitted to the new Bishop Felix. This appears from the Testimony 
(a) Cum Liberio Damasus Diaconus ejus se s●nulat proficisci; unde fugiens de itinere, Roman rediit, ambitione corruptus.  of the Presbyters Marcellinus and Faustinus. They add indeed, that what he did was through Ambition: But that is only a malicious Insinuation, which was very natural to them, they being, when they wrote, the mortal Enemies of Damasus, and engaged in a Schism against him: And indeed their whole Book is nothing but a Petition preferred to the Emperors against him. With this Testimony of Marcellinus and Faustinus, as to matter of fact, agrees that Tradition of the Pontisical, that Damasus was one of those Presbyters that buried the Body of Felix. Hence likewise it came to pass, That, after the Death of Liberius, that part of the Clergy that had formerly adhered to Pope Felix, chose Damasus Pope in opposition to Vrsinus (or Vrsicinus.) This appears by the Testimony of an ancient Register of the Roman Church, as ancient as those Times, which 
(b) Quo mortuo Presbyteri aliquot & Diaconi S. R. E. Liberianae partis statim Ursicinum Diaconum Episcopum constituunt, & à Paulo Episcopo Tiburtino ordinari faciunt. Hi verò qui Felici adhaeserant, Damasum in Schismate etiam ipsi Pontificem Romanum renunciant. Onuphrius Not. ad Platinam ad vitam Felicis II. ex Registro (ab Ursinianis scripto.)  Onuphrius Panvinius quotes; and 'tis likewise related by Marcellinus and Faustinus; who give this account of that Affair: 
(c) Tune Presbyteri & Diaconi, Ursinus, Amantius & Lupus, cum plebe sanctâ, que Liberio fidem servaverat in exilio constituo, caeperunt in Basilicâ julii procedere, & sibi Ursinum Diaconum Pontificem in locum Liberit ordinar● deposcunt. Perjuri verò in Lucinis Damasum sibi Episcopum in locum Felicis expostulant.  Liberius, say they, being deceased, the Presbyters and Deacons, Ursinus, Amantius, and Lupus, with the holy People who had continued firm to Liberius in his Banishment, meet together, and Ursinus is chose Bishop in the room of Liberius; but the perjured Party (so they speak, as having been themselves Liberians, and as being at that time the mortal Enemies of Damasus) chose Damasus their Bishop in the room of Felix. So firmly had Damasus, and the rest of that Party, adhered to Felix, that here they say, 'twas in Felix's room that Damasus was chose Bishop by that Party. This, I say, is highly remarkable, that not only the much greater Part of the Clergy of Rome, but likewise the famous and the learned Damasus did not at all doubt of the lawfulness of submitting to the present Orthodox Possessor, tho' the Predecessor were never so unjustly deposed by the Lay-power. This was both the Opinion and the Practice of one who is wont to be called the Great, the Pious, and the Orthodox Damasus; he that for his Piety has been all along honoured by the Church as a Saint; the Cleri speculúmque decúsque, as a 
(a) Nic. Montacutius in versibus de Romans Pontif.  Modern Poet calls him; That sanctus and beatus Damasus, as 
(b) Epist. 30. ad Valentin, Augustum.  S. Ambrose and 
(c) Lib. 6. contra julianum, c. 12.  S. Augustine call him; That Vir laudabilis, as he is called by 
(d) Lib. 10. Epist. 41.  Symmachus; That mentis sanctissimae Vir, as he is styled by the Emperor 
(e) Rescripto apud Sirmondianas Conciliorum Italiae Epistolas, p. 94.  Gratian; That Vir egregius & eruditus in Scriptures; That Ecclesiae Doctor, as he is termed by 
(f) Apolog. ad Pammachium propè finem.  S. Jerome; the most glorious Damasus, as 
(g) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Theodoret Hist. l. 5. c. 10.  Theodoret calls him; he that was 
(h) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ibid. l. 2. c. 22.  adorned with all sorts of Virtue, and was always ready to defend all true Apostolical Doctrines, both by his Words and by his 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ibid. l. 5. c. 2▪ & Libellus Cynodicus, c. 65.  Actions, as the same Author says of him; He (in a word) whom the Emperor Theodosius, by a 
† Cod. Theodos. lib. 16. tit. 1. leg. 2. By Isaac Catholicus, Invectiuâ 1. in Armenios' p. 390, he is reckoned amongst the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Law, makes the Rule and Standard of all Orthodoxy. It may perhaps be objected, That tho' our Damasus, when he chiefly flourished, was accounted so great and so worthy a Man; yet in Felix's time he might be but a young Man: and so his Authority will be much less considerable. To this I answer, That in the time of Pope Felix, our Damasus was so far from being a 
‖ Damasus was 23 Years old in the time of the Council of Nice.  young Man, that, when Felix was made Pope, he was above fifty Years old; and when Felix died, to whom he had constantly adhered, he was above sixty: And it was not full a Year after Felix's Death before he himself was advanced to the Honour of the Popedom. This is manifest from hence, That after he was made Pope, viz. upon Liberius' Death, in the Year 366, in the Month of October, he lived, according to those that say 
(i) Pontificale, Ado in Martyrolog. etc.  most, but 18 Years and 2 or 3 Months, more truly but 
(k) From October in the Consulship of Gratian and Dagalaiphus, in which Damasus was made Bishop, as appears by the Presb. Marcellinus and Faustinus, to October in the Consulship of Antonius and Syagrius, in which he died, as appears by Marcellinus Gomes, are just 16 Years.  16 Years; and yet, when he died, he was as S. Jerome, his Familiar Friend, attests, about 
(l) Catalogo Script. Eccles. prope octogenarius, which Sophronius translates 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: So Suidas out of him.  80 Years of Age. He died, as Marcellinus Comes witnesses, in the Month of October, when Antonius and Syagrius were Consuls, that is, in the Year 382. He was therefore 53 Years of Age when Felix was made Bishop, and, when Felix died, he was in the 63d. Year of his Age. Felix, as is above said, was promoted in the room of Liberius, in the Year 355. and was again turned out upon the Restauration of Liberius, somewhat less than two Years after: Eight Years (as has been already observed) he lived after that, and died on the 10th. of the Kalends of December, when Valentinian and Valens were Consuls, i. e. in the Year 365. Liberius survived Felix but about 10 Months, for he died on the 8th. of the Kalends of October, in the Consulship of Gratian and Dagalaiphus, i. e. the Year following. This is plain from the express Words of the Presbyters Marcellinus and Faustinus. I need not add any thing, to confute that Story, which we find in two fabulous Lives of Pope Damasus, That when Pope Liberius was banished, he constituted our Damasus his Vicar to supply his place in his absence; and that he accordingly did so, till Liberius was restored. If that be true, than he did not adhere to Pope Felix: But it needs but very little Judgement, were there no good Authority for what we have here laid down, to discover the falseness of that Monkish Story; and 'tis easy to show how little the Writers of it knew, relating to Liberius' Banishment. I shall take it for granted, that there is no one so Injudicious as to hearken to it.  
I must here add, That tho' our Authors, when they speak of the People's Aversion to Felix, are wont to make use of general Terms; and tell us, that all the People refused to communicate with him; yet I do not believe, that they ought to be understood strictly, but only of the much greater Part. That Felix had a very considerable Party, not only amongst the Clergy, but likewise amongst the Laity, seems to me very probable from hence, That within a Year after Felix's Death, when Vrsinus (or Vrsicinus) was chose Pope by the Liberians, and Damasus by the Felicians, there arose a great Contention, not only among the Clergy, but likewise among the Laity; and Damasus then had the greatest part of the People on his side, and many of 'em were so zealous and violent for him, as that much blood was spilt. This Schism and Contention seems to have proceeded partly from some former Heats and Sidings of the People. I know, that the Presbyters Marcellinus and Faustinus say, that Damasus had bribed the People with a great Sum of Money: But that is only a malicious Suggestion, such as might be expected from Persons so much his Enemies. I shall not take notice, that in the Pontifical it is said, That, when Felix was Martyred, there suffered with him multi Clerici & Fideles; not only many of the Clergy, but likewise many others of the Faithful: The Story of his being put to Death is too uncertain, much more the Circumstances of it. Yet at least this appears from that Story, that amongst the Ancients 'twas believed, that many of the Laity, as well as of the Clergy, adhered to him.  
Having thus shown, what Reception Pope Felix met with at Rome, I shall show in the next place, that, tho' he was made Bishop in the room of the unjustly deposed Liberius, yet, first, the Catholic Bishops of his own district communicated with him, and received him as their Metropolitan. Secondly, His Ordinations were received and allowed of as valid, by even his Adversary Liberius. Thirdly, The whole Western Church has all along owned him as one of the true Bishops of Rome.  
It cannot be expected, but that he who was Ordained by the Arians in the place of one deposed for opposing the Arians, and likewise communicated with the Arians, should by many, be both thought and spoken ill of. But whoever they were, that did not approve of our Pope Felix, because they thought him an Arian, or because he was ordained by the Arians, or because he communicated with the Arians, their Authority and Judgement make nothing at all against us. He was thought (as has been already observed) not only by the People of Rome, but likewise by S. Athanasius, an Arian. So 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. l. 2. c. 37.  Socrates calls him expressly, tho' he mentions with all, that others affirmed, he was Orthodox. So likewise S. Jerome in his Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers; tho' indeed in Sophronius' Greek Translation of that Work, the word Arian is not to be found. From this ill Opinion that many had conceived of him, it came to pass, that by some there was this false story raised concerning him, That as soon as he was put by the Arians into Liberius' place, he was punished by God with the loss of his Eyes, and afterwards died of a Pestilential Disease. This Story is told of him by the Author of that Life of S. Athanasius, which is extant in 
† Biblioth. Cod. 258. p. 1445.  Photius. Hence likewise it was, that the Writer of one of the Lives of Pope Damasius (whom another follows in his Fiction) invented that Story above mentioned, that Liberius made Damasus his Vicar to oppose the Endeavours of the Arians during the time of his Banishment: He had read in S. Jerome, that Felix was ordained by the Arian Acacius (so he himself writes) and thence he concluded, that Felix himself was an Arian. Thence he further inferred, that some one was appointed by Liberius, to oppose in his stead, the endeavours of the Arians; and who should that be, but his Damasus? Hence likewise it was, that the Chronologer Marcellinus Comes thought he ought to be excepted out of the number of the Bishops of Rome. That his thinking him an Arian, was the reason of his excepting him, may be gathered from hence, that he likewise 
(a) Damasus Roman Ecclesiae, exceptis Liberio & Felice, XXXV. Episcopus.  excepts Liberius, because he at last had subscribed to the Arian Belief. In like manner 
(b) Chron. ad an. 329 349.  S. Jerome calls S. Cyril of jerusalem, and Meletius of Antioch, Heretics; and he will not allow 'em a place amongst the Bishops of those Sees; because they were made Bishops by the Arians, and at first seemed to favour 'em. Yet even in his Time almost all the Greek Church received 'em into Communion, and very highly esteemed 'em; and now by both Churches they are honoured with the Title of Saints, By 
(c) De Schismate Donatist. l. 2. p. 36. Marco Successit julius, julio Liberius, Liberio Damasus, etc.  Optatus Melevitanus and 
(d) Epist. 165. in the same words with Optatus.  S. Augustine, where they reckon up the Successions of the Bishops of Rome, our Felix is omitted: But from thence it cannot be inferred, that they did not own him as one of the Bishops of Rome. For it is not their Design to reckon up all the Popes that had been, but only to show, for the Confutation of the Donatists, that at Rome they had had a Succession of Bishops from the Times of the Apostles. Since therefore Liberius was again restored, and so was the immediate Predecessor of Damasus, as he was the Successor of julius, it was not at all for their purpose to make any mention of Felix. It is not the business of Optatus, says a learned Annotator, to give us the Names of all the Popes, but only the Successions. And it would have been ridiculous in him to have mentioned Felix as the Successor of Liberius, since Liberius not only outlived Felix, but likewise enjoyed the Pontificate after his death. Upon this account likewise, S. Augustine in his 165 th'. Epistle, where, upon the like occasion, he reckons up the Successions of the Bishops of Rome, makes no mention of Felix. Thus the learned Meric Casaubon, tho' he was not at all concerned whether Felix were owned as a true Pope or no. 'Tis observed by Anastasius, in his Edition of the Pontifical, that the Time of Felix's Government is usually comprehended in that of Liberius. Thus it is in the Catalogues of Kings; if a King has Reigned twice, the Name of that King who Reigned, in the Time of the others Expulsion, is very frequently omitted. And this was the reason why Felix is omitted by Theodoret in that Catalogue of the Bishops of Rome which he has subjoined at the end of his History.  
These things I thought fit to premise, to prevent Mistakes, and to cut off all Objections beforehand. We will now proceed to the Things proposed to be proved.  
1. That the Catholic Bishops of his District acknowleged him as their Metropolitan, and that others likewise, as many as had an occasion, communicated with him, may be proved by many Arguments: First, From the three Epistles which are extant in Isidorus Mercator, one from S. Athanasius and the Synod of Alexandria to him, in which he is owned as true Bishop of Rome, and addressed to as such; another from him and a Synod at Rome, in answer to that of S. Athanasius; and a third from him and a Synod at Rome, to the Church-Catholick. For tho' it be certain, that all those Epistles are altogether fictitious; yet from them it is manifest, that at that time in which they were written, viz. about 900 Years ago, it was taken for granted, that Felix was generally owned by all Catholic Bishops. 2dly, From the Authority of the Pontifical, in which it is said, that he called a Synod of 48 Bishops, and condemned the Emperor Constantius and the Arians. And this is affirmed not only in the Vulgar Pontifical ascribed to Anastasius, but likewise in that which was published in the time of the Emperor justinian the Elder, above 1150 Years ago; viz. about the Year 534. If it be doubted whether there were really such a Synod called by Pope Felix, as the Pontifical affirms; yet at least thus much must be granted, that near 1200 Years ago there was an undoubted Tradition in the Church, that the Bishops of the District of Rome acknowleged him for their Metropolitan. But 3dly. It appears from the Inscription which was found on his Body, when that was took up at Rome in the Time of Pope Gregory XIII. that there was such a Synod called by him. The Inscription was this 
* See Daronius' Annals, an. 357. §. 50. : CORPUS S. FELICIS PAPAE ET MARTYRIS QUI DAMNAVIT CONSTANTIUM. The aforesaid Pope Gregory XIII. having ordered the Roman Martyrology, to be reviewed and corrected, Baronius was very zealous to have our Felix omitted, as doubting of his being a Martyr, (and because he thought, that his being owned as one of the true Popes, might prove a good Argument against some Pretensions of the Church of Rome:) In this he was by many opposed, especially by the Card. julius Antonius Sanctorius. In the midst of this Contention the Body chanced to be found, together with the Bodies of some other Saints, (by a Miracle, say the Popish Historians,) and that put an end to the Controversy. Tho' there's no one more apt than myself to suspect the Integrity of Romanists in things of this Nature; and tho' the time in which this Body was found is enough to make one suspect at first thought, that the Inscription of that Body which was found, was only a pia fraus of the Cardinal Sanctorius' Party: Yet if we feriously consider, 'twill be hard to think it an Imposture, since all the great Men of Rome saw the Body, amongst them Baronius, who owns himself confuted by it. 'Tis true, I do not believe that the being a second time baptised was that for which Constantius was condemned by that Synod: But that is not said in the Inscription; and 'twas only the mistake of the Author of the Pontifical. Neither do I believe that that Synod was called before Pope Felix was ejected: I rather think that 'twas after he was ejected, and that it consisted of s●al● Bishops (scarce so many, I suppose, as 48.) as adhered to him, in the time of his Ejectment, in opposition to the lapsed Liberius. Neither, Lastly, do I believe, that Felix was ever put to death. The whole truth I take to be this: He was therefore called a Martyr by his Adherents, and so entitled in the abovesaid Inscription, because he was ejected by the Heretics, and suffered 
† That the Title of Martyr was frequently, given to such, tho' they died a natural Death, See Forbes●i Instruct. Hist. Theol. l. 12. c. 2. etc. and Suiceri Thesa●ltus.  much for his Faith, and died a Confessor. Hence afterwards arose that Tradition concerning his being put to death, the Title of Martyr being understood by Posterity in the more common sense. 4thly. It is said in both the Pontificals, as well the ancient as that ascribed to Anastasius, that Felix in his time Ordained 5 Deacons, 21 Presbyters, and 18 (or 19) Bishops. And the truth of this cannot with any show of Reason be questioned; since 'twas easy for the Author to know it by the public Registe●s. 5thly. I observe, that amongst all the ancient Writers, who have mentioned his succeeding Liberius, tho' he governed 
‖ The Pontifical says a year, and two months. It is certain from Theodoret, S. Athanasiu● Epist. ad Solit. p. 837. & Apolog. ad Const. p. 807. and the Presb. Marcellinus and Faustinus, that 'twas somewhat more than two years that Liberius was in Banishment.  above a year, and tho' they generally mention that the Laity of Rome refused to communicate with him; yet not a word in any, that the Bishops of the District of Rome refused to own him for their Metropolitan. Had the Bishops of his District refused to own him, it must needs have made such a noise, as that some one or other would have mentioned it.  
2. That our Felix Ordained many Bishops and others, is apparent, not only from the express Testimony of the Pontifical, but likewise from Reason itself, since he governed, as I but now said, above the space of a Year, and Liberius was in Banishment above two Years: Now that all those whom Felix had ordained, were received and approved of by Liberius when he was again restored, is apparent from this, That there is not a word in any Author of so much as a Question raised against 'em And of this Baronius himself, tho' no great Friend of Felix's, does not at all doubt.  
I here observe farther, First, That the Schismatical Presbyters, Marcellinus and Faustinus, and the Writer of Onuphrius' Register, who likewise lived in those days, tho' they were all Vrsinians, and hated all those that adhered to Felix, yet giving an account what became of the Clergy that adhered to Felix, they only say, that after the death of Felix they 
* Post annos octo defunctus est Felix, Liberius misericordiam fecit in Glericos qui perjuraverant, eosque in locis propriis suscepit.  had their Perjury pardoned by Liberius, and so were restored to their former Stations in the Church. They do not say, that they were pardoned or absolved for any Sin committed in receiving a second Bishop, but that they were pardoned for their Perjury. The other, it seems, was not reckoned a sin by either Liberius or those Writers. Secondly, That it appears from the Historian Philostorgius, that Felix, after he was ejected was still accounted a Bishop. Felix, says he, who in the absence of Liberius had been consecrated Bishop of Rome, when Liberius was again restored, retired to another place, 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. l. 4. §. 3.  enjoying indeed the Honour and Title of a Bishop, but without any District. There are some of the Moderns, as Platina (if I well remember) and others, who say, That after he was deposed at Rome, he was made the Bishop of some other Place; but that indeed is not true. They seem to have been deceived by those words of Theodoret; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
3. That the Church of Rome, and withal, the whole Western Church has all along owned him for one of the true Bishops of Rome, appears from all their ancient Catalogues, Martyrologies, and Breviaries. By all which it is manifest, not only that they have all along owned him as a true Bishop of Rome, but likewise, that they have all along worshipped him as one of their 
* The Day dedicated to him is the 29th. of july.  Saints. Vt verus Pontifex habetur (says the Learned Papebrochius) memoratus in omnibus Catalogis, Breviariis, & Martyrologis, & haclenus in Ecclesia officio proprio colitur. Hence it was that those Epistles were forged in his Name, which are extant in Mercator amongst the Epistles which are forged in the Names of the rest of the Popes. Hence likewise in the ancient Collectors of Canons, such as Ivo Carnotensis and 
† Decreti parte 2. Caus. 2. Qu. 6. c. 16. & Caus. 3. Qu. 3. & 5. c. 11.  Gratian, there are extant certain Decrees in his Name, as Authentic and good Law, taken out of the aforesaid Epistles. He is owned as a Saint and true Pope by the Historians, Martinus, an Archbishop of Poland, in the Thirteenth Century; Marianus Scotus in the Eleventh Century; Albo Floriacensis in the Tenth; Anastasius the Librarian, and the Germane Author of the Book de Vitis Pontificum attributed to Luitprandus Bishop of Cremona, in the Ninth. So likewise in the ancient Martyrologies. In the genuine Martyrology of our Venerable Bede near 1000 Years ago, and in those of Florus and 
‖ Writ in Verse, and erroneously ascribed to Bede under the Title of Ephemerideses.  Wandelbertus, he is mentioned. In others more fully. In the Roman published by Baronius: Sancti Felicis II. Papae & Martyris. In that of Vsuardus: Natalis Sancti Felicis Papae, qui à Constantio Augusto à sede suâ dejectus, etc. In that of Notkerus: Nativitas sancti Felicis Papae. Again, Ejecit Constantius sanctum Felicem Vrbis Episcopum de sede Episcopatûs sui. In that of Ado Archbishop of Vienna, who flourished in the Ninth Century, as did likewise Vsuardus and Notkerus: Beati Felicis Pontificis. Again in the same words with Notkerus, Ejecit Imp. Constantius, etc. Again, Depositus sanctus ac beatissimus Papa Felix. In that of Rabanus Archbishop of Mentz, who flourished in the beginning of the same Age; Passio Felicis Papae & Martyris. In another ascribed to Bede, and extant amongst his Works, but not truly his; S. Felicis Pontificis. In the Sacramentarium of Pope Gregory the Great, who flourished in the Year 590: Beati Felicis Martyris tui atque Pontificis intercessio gloriosa nos protegat. To these I add the ancient Pontifical, which was writ (as I said) above 1150 Years ago, about the Year 534, in which he is mentioned as a Saint, and one of the true Popes. And here again I must repeat what has been already observed, That so great was the Honour which the Church had for him in the time of Pope Damasus, that 'tis said by the Vrsinian Presbyters Marcellinus and Faustinus, that Damasus was chose, not into the room of Liberius, but in Felix's place. Tho' that cannot be true, since, as those Presbyters themselves attest, those of the Clergy who chose Pope Damasus, had after Felix's death, been reconciled to Liberius, and they did not pretend to choose Damasus till after the decease of Liberius: Yet (I say) it is manifest from that Insinuation, that all Damasus' Party, that is, the Church, at least the Clergy of the Church, had still a great honour for Felix, and still looked upon him as one of their true Popes.  
As he is owned for a true Pope by the whole Western Church, so likewise in the Eastern by Nicephorus the Patriarch of Constantinople, who flourished in the Year 806. and that too, tho' Nicephorus 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  well knew, that he came into the place of Liberius when Liberius was unjustly deposed by the Emperor. In his Chronology, as Liberius is reckoned the 35th. Bishop of Rome, so our Felix is called the 36th.  
To all this I add, That among all the ancient Writers, who have mentioned our Felix his succeeding Liberius, there is not so much as one, that either says expressly, or gives any Hint, that upon that account, it was not lawful for the Church of Rome to submit to him: or that upon that account he could not be a true Bishop. The Schismatical Presbyters, Marcellinus and Faustinus, are the only Writers that have any thing looking that way. They say, that the Clergy of Rome accepted of Pope Felix contra fas quod minimè decebat cum summo perjurii scelere. But it does not appear from these words, that they thought it was a Sin to receive a Bishop when the other had been unjustly deposed: They only seem to reflect upon their being forsworn; so they afterwards say that Liberius pardoned their Perjury, and do not take notice of any other Sin pardoned. If they meant any more, it is not at all to be wondered at, in regard that Felix was ordained by the Arians, and 'tis certain that the said Presbyters were great Admirers of Lucifer Calaritanus, and did not allow of a Bishop ordained by the Arians. I add, That whatsoever their Opinion might be, it deserves not at all to be regarded, since what they write is directly against Pope Damasus, who was one of that Party: And since when they wrote, they were Schismatics, and had never any regard to the Peace and Tranquillity of the Church. It appears in particular of the Historian Sozomen, that he never knew any thing of our Adversary's Doctrine. He says, that when Liberius was restored, he and Felix were Co-bishops of Rome: But Felix, 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 4. c. 15. To the same purpose Nicephorus Callist. l. 9 c. 37. out of Sozomen.  says he, after Liberius was joined with him, lived but a little while, and Liberius alone governed the Church. And this indeed happened by God's particular Providence, lest the See of Peter should be dishonoured, by being governed at the same time by two Bishops; which is both repugnant to the Unity, and against the Laws of the Church. Tho ' this be 
‖ Sozomen had heard that Felix was still owned by one part of the Clergy; and thence he inferred, that he and Liberius were Bishops together in Rome.  not altogether true as to matter of fact, yet from what he says it is easy to discover that this was his opinion, That Felix was a true Bishop, and that it was lawful to acknowledge him as such. Yet no one more tender of the Church's Honour than he: as appears from these same Words.  
Tho' we have been a long while in the Company of Pope Felix, and the Reader (I presume) begins to grow weary of it: Yet before we shake hands there must one thing more be cleared. 'Tis said in the Pontifical, that when Liberius was deposed, 'twas by his own Advice that Felix was made Bishop in his room. In this the Pontifical is followed by several of the Moderns; in particular by Antoninus' Archbishop of Florence, who 
* Chron. part 2. Tit. 9 c. 2.  tells us, That either Liberius resigned, and so, together with others, chose Felix for his Successor, or else he made him his Vicar-General to supply his place in his absence. If any thing of this be true, than all that we have hitherto said makes nothing for our purpose: It therefore highly concerns us to lay open the falseness of that Story. We shall do it with a great deal of ease; and that from these Considerations. First, That the Clergy of Rome, when Liberius was about to leave the City, engaged themselves to him by an Oath not to accept of any other Bishop whilst he was alive, and that when they did accept of Felix, they were looked upon as perjured. This is expressly attested by S. Jerome, the Presbyters Marcellinus and Faustinus, and the Writer of the Register quoted by Onuphrius who all lived at that time. Secondly, That the same S. Jerome, and likewise Ruffinus, and Socrates, and S. Athanasius himself, expressly affirm, and others plainly intimate, that Felix was put into Liberius' Place by the Arians. Thirdly, That, Liberius being again restored, Felix, with all those of the Clergy that had submitted to him, were with violence expelled, and Liberius entered Rome as a Conqueror. So S. Jerome affirms, and with him agree the Pontifical itself, Theodoret, Socrates, Onuphrius' Register, and the Presbyters Marcellinus and Faustinus. To conclude; That Story of the Pontifical that Liberius consented to the making of Felix Pope, is by Baronius himself rejected as not in the least to be harkened to. The falseness of it seems to have been discovered by Platina himself, and, long before him, by the Author of the Book De Vitis Pontificum ascribed to Luitprandus: who, tho' in other things they follow the Pontifical, and say, as that does, that the Sacerdotes called a Synod, and made Felix Bishop; yet they leave out those words, Cum Consilio Liberii.  
I shall only add, That if Liberius gave his Consent to the Election of Felix, than Felix was the rightful and the only Bishop. Since therefore Liberius was again received and owned by the Catholic Church, when Felix was deposed by the Emperor bare Authority, we should (if we granted that Story to be true) only change one Instance for another, not lose one.  
And thus have we done with the famous Example of Felix and Liberius. An Example which our Adversaries (as I found after this was written) are so unhappy as to allege for their Cause. They tell us that Felix was rejected by the Catholics of Rome: So the Author of the 
* Pag. 7.  Further Account of the Baroccian MS. and the Author of the 
† Pag. 60.  Unity of Priesthood, etc. Once more, says the latter, and then most or all my Instances, will be reviewed and made good, and that relates to Liberius and Felix: Liberius was banished, and Felix his Deacon was made Bishop in his stead; A man, saith Sozomen, always reported to be firm to the Nicene Faith, and as to matters of Religion altogether blameless. And yet when Liberius was recalled from Banishment, Felix was forced to retire; nay, the People of Rome, tho' requested thereunto by the Emperor, would not so much, according to Theodoret, as suffer him to remain Copartner with Liberius in the Bishopric. From whence it is evident, let Mr. Hody say what he will to the contrary, that there is something more required in a new Bishop, than barely to be Orthodox. 'Tis impossible but these Authors must have known at lest something of what has been above demonstrated: But they did not think that it would be for their profit to let their Readers know all. To confirm our Assertion, (says the Author first quoted) that the Ancients thought it unlawful to submit to the present Possessor, when the Predecessor was deposed by the Emperor, you may command a great many Instances from the Churches of France, Italy, Asia, Egypt, and the like; at present I shall only produce that of Felix and Liberius. I am sorry those many Instances of France, Italy, Asia, Egypt, etc. were concealed by our Author. What sort of Instances they are, we may guests by that of P. Felix, which, as one of his best, he thinks fit to produce. When he shall be pleased to draw out the rest of his Artillery, I dare engage, they will either appear to be nothing at all but Wood, or may easily be turned against him. I expect the former, in regard that to prove his Assertion, he produces the Example of S. Hilary Bishop of Poitiers, who, says he, was banished by the Emperor Constantius, yet was still owned as Bishop of that See: And that he proves from those words of his, in his Book which he wrote to the Emperor; Licet in exilio permanens, & Ecclesiae adhuc per Presbyteros meos Communionem distribuens. If S. Hilary continued still Bishop of Poitiers, what is that to the Cause now before us, since there was not any Orthodox Person made Bishop in his stead? So far was he from having an Orthodox Person for his Successor, that (while he was in Banishment) he had not any Successor at all. He was never deposed, but barely banished: and accordingly after four years' time he was again restored.   

CHAP. V.  
The Catholics of Alexandria reject Lucius, because he was an Arian, not because his Predecessor Peter, was unjustly deposed by the Emperor. Our Adversaries Doctrine not known to the said Peter. §. 1. S. Briccius of Tours deposed by the People. Yet Justinian and Armentius his Successors, are owned as true Bishops of Tours Armentius is owned as true Bishop by S. Briccius himself, though he had never given up his Right, but had always claimed it. §. 2. S. Euthymius refuses to communicate with Theodosius, Patriarch of Jerusalem, because he was a Heretic, and had embrued his Hands in the Blood of many Persons, not because the Patriarch Juvenalis, whose See he had usurped, was still living. Theodosius' Ordinations are allowed of as valid. §. 3. Acacius, Patriarch of Constantinople, refuses to communicate with Timotheus Aelurns, not because he was put into the place of Timotheus Salofaciolus, unjustly deposed by the Heretical Usurper Basiliscus, but because he was a Heretic and a Parricide. §. 4. Jo. Talaias', the Orthodox Patriarch of Alexand. being deposed by the bar● Authority of the Emperor Zeno, though he still laid claim to the See, yet Petrus Mongus his Successor, is acknowleged by all that accounted him Orthodox, by Acacius and Fravitas, Patriarches of Constantinop. by Martyrius Patriarch of Jerusalem, by (almost) all the Bishops of the Eastern Church; That they who refused to communicate with Mongus, viz. the Western Bishops, the Bishops of Dardania, etc. did it only because they thought him a Heretic; That Euphemius Patriarch of Constantinople communicated with him till he found him to be a Heretic, then for sook his Communion. Pope Simplicius, when he heard that Talaias' was to be deposed, was well enough satisfied, till he understood, that Mongus, whom he accounted a Heretic, was designed for his Successor. Whether Orthodox Bishops unjustly ejected by the Emperor be restored, or new Orthodox Bishops be created, he values not, he only desires that they that are made Bishops should be Orthodox. Pope Felix III. not at all concerned for Talaias' being deprived without a Synod, only dislikes that one, whom he accounted a Heretic, was constituted in his place. §. 5. Calendion Patriarch of Antioch, being deposed by the Emperor Zeno, without any Synod, the Orthodox Bishops, viz. Pope Felix III. Quintianus Asculanus, Justinus Siculus, Acacius Constantinopolitanus, Antheon Arsinoites, Faustus Apolloniates, Pamphilus Abydensis, Asclepiades of Trallium, etc. refuse to communicate with his Successor, Petrus Gnapheus, only because he was a Heretic; take no notice of his being constituted in the room of one Unsynodically deposed, and are ready to communicate with him as a true Patriarch of Antioch, if he will but forsake his Heresy.  
IN the year CCCLXXI. Peter though Successor of S. Athanasius in the See of Alexandria, because he was Orthodox, was violently deposed by Palladius the perfect of Egypt; and the High-Treasurer Magnus, by the order of Valens the Arian Emperor, and Lucius an Arian was made Bishop in his place. That there was not any Synod concerned in his deprivation, is plain beyond all controversy from what is related by 
(a) Hist. l. 4. c. 21.  Theodoret, 
(b) L. 4. c. 21.  Socrates, 
(c) L. 6. c. 19  Sozomen, and by 
(d) Apud Theodoret. l. 4. c. 22. Vide quoque libel. Synodicum Syn. 70.  Peter himself in that Epistle, which he wrote to the Catholic Church concerning his Deprivation. Though Peter was in this manner deposed, yet the Catholics of the Church of Alexandria, did not upon that account keep off from Lucius' Communion, but only upon the account of his being a Heretic. This I gather from those words of Theodoret 
(e) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. . But the People having been nourished with the Doctrine of Athanasius, when they saw that quite contrary Food was offered them, kept off from the Churches. Not a word any where that the unjust deprivation of Peter, was one of the Causes of their Separation.  
And Peter himself in the aforesaid Epistle, though with a great deal of Rhetoric he endeavours to set forth the Crimes of Lucius, and to excite all the Church, to whom he writes, to the greatest abhorrence of his Actions, yet he does not raise this Objection against him, that he was thrust into the Throne whilst he himself was yet living. He only complains, 1st. That he was a Heretic, and 2d. That he was made Bishop without any Regular and Customary Proceedings; That he had bought the Bishopric, like a secular Office, with Money; was created Bishop neither by a Synod of Orthodox Bishops, nor by the Votes of the lawful Clergy, nor by the Postulation of the People, as the Laws of the Church required. There were with him no Bishops, no Presbyters or Deacons, no multitudes of People, no Monks going before him singing Hymns. He thought (as it seems) that there was no thing more required for the making his Successor true Bishop of that See, but Orthodoxy and a Regular Election.  
§. 2. In the year CCCCXXXV. S. Briccius Archbishop of Tours, the Successor of S. Martin was deposed, after he had been Bishop above 32 years, by the 
(f) Quâ de re surrexit omnis populus Turonorum in iram, & totum crimen super Episcopum referunt, volentes eum unanimiter lapidare.— illis verò non credentibus, sed contradicentibus, trahitur, calumniatur, ejicitur— hoc enim ejecto justinianum Episcopum constituunt, etc. Greg. Turon, Hist. l. 2, cap. 1.  Inhabitants of that City. They suspected him to be guilty of Incontinence, and although it was only a suspicion, yet out he must go. In his Room they placed one justinian, who shortly after died; then they made one Armentius their Bishop, who continued in that See till he died, for near the space of seven years. In the mean time Briccius remained at Rome, there making his complaint to the Pope, and 
(*) V. Greg. Turon. loco cit.  endeavouring to be restored. So far was he from consenting to the consecration of Armentius. I here observe, that the Historian Gregory who was one of the Archbishops of that See, and flourished in the year 573. when he treats of this Affair, makes no manner of mention of any disturbance in the Church occasioned by this injustice, not a word to the contrary, but that Armentius was readily acknowleged by all of that district, and by all the Bishops of France. Had there been any disturbance, he could not but have known it, and if he had known it, he would not have failed to have mentioned it; for he himself very highly resents the injustice which the holy Briccius suffered. He tells us, that Iustinian's dying so soon, was a judgement of God upon him. He thinks it so, because (as he himself relates) God had wrought certain Miracles by the hand of Briccius to convince the People of his Innocence, yet they would not be convinced, and notwithstanding those great Miracles turned him out, and made justinian their Bishop. I observe in the 2d. place, that the Historian, who himself (as I said) was Bishop of that See, and moreover a Saint, reckons justinian and Armentius in the Catalogue of his predecessors the Archbishops of Tours. For though in that Catalogue of the Bishops of that See, which is added at the end of the last Book, Briccius is called the Fourth, and Eustochius, who succeeded upon his Death, is called the Fifth Bishop from the first Institution of the See, yet throughout the whole History, justinian and Armentius are reckoned in the number. For 
(a) L. 2. c. 14.  Perpetuus who succeeded Eustochius, is called the Fifth Bishop after S. Martin. Virus, who was the 2d. from Eustochius, is called the 
(b) L. 2. c. 26.  7th. Bishop after S. Martin. To him succeeded Licinius, and him he calls the 
(c) L. 2. c. 39 Denique migrante viro (so it must be read, not Eustochio) Turonorum Episcopo, octavus post sanctum Martinum, Licinius Turonicis Episcopus ordinatur.  8th. Bishop after S. Martin. Now unless justinian and Armentius are included in the Number, Perpetuus will be only the 3d. Bishop after S. Martin, Virus only the 5th. and Licinius only the 6th. Thirdly, I observe, that S. Briccius, though he was so unjustly deposed by barely the Violence of the People, and though he never had given up his right, but had all along endeavoured to recover it, yet he himself owned Armentius to be a true Bishop of Tours, and calls him his Brother. The Historian tells us, that when he was sent back to Tours by the Pope to be restored, as he lay at some distance from the City, Armentius died, and the death of Armentius being revealed to him by a Vision, he thus cried out to his Company; Arise quickly, that we may go to the Funeral of 
(d) Ait suis, Surgite velocius, ut ad tumulandum fratrem nostrum Turonicum pontificem occurramus.  our Brother the Bishop of Tours.  
§. 3. In the year 452. juvenalis being Patriarch of jerusalem, Theodosius a certain turbulent Monk, and an Adversary of the Council of Chalcedon, had 
(e) Vide Imp. Marcia●● Epistolam apud alla concilii Chalced. parte 3. c. 3. p. 851. & ejusdem Epistolam aliam, ibid. c. 9 p. 856. Vide & Evag. l. 2. c. 5. & Cyrillum Scythop. V. S. Euthym. p. 55, 56.  by the slaughter of a great many Persons, got himself to be ordained Patriarch of that See, though juvenalis was still alive, and had never been deposed by any Synod, nor yet by the Emperor himself; yet the only Objection that the 
(c) S. Euthymius was at that time in the 76th. Year of his Age. V. Vitam ejus, p. 54.  Venerable, the Great, and Orthodox Abbot, S. Euthymius, made against him, when urged to acknowledge him as Patriarch, and to communicate with him, was this, That he had been guilty of many Murders, and was likewise a Heretic. 
(d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Ib. p. 56.  God forbid (says he) I should approve of his Murders, and ill Opinions. Concerning juvenalis, that he had not been Synodically deprived, and that therefore it was not lawful to acknowledge a Successor, not a word. Theodosius had ordained many Bishops in the room of those Orthodox Bishops who were not yet returned from the Council, and all places that were vacant he filled up. After some little time, he was deposed by the Emperor, and juvenalis being restored, was commanded by the Emperor to depose all those Bishops whom he had ordained. But though he had usurped▪ the See after so 
(e) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cyril. loc. cit.  barbarous a manner, and though they that had been ordained by him, were as uncanonically. ordained as possibly they could be, yet 
(f) He is reckonin the Catalogue of the Bishops of I●rusalem, by Nicephorus Patriarch of Constantinople. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  they who were Orthodox, were still accounted true Bishops, and if their Predecessors were dead, were still continued in their Sees. This appears from the Example of 
(g) There fell off, says Evagrius, l. 3. c. 6. from the Communion of Timotheus Aelurus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Theodotus Bishop of joppa, who, though he was ordained by him, yet continued long after that time Bishop of that See, and was owned as such by the Orthodox.  
§. 4. Timotheus Aelurus, a notorious Eutychian Heretic, who as such had been formerly condemned by a Synod 
(h) Epist. Episcoporum & Cler. Aegypti, ap. Evag. l. 2. c. 8.  of all the Bishops of Egypt, was in the year 457. the 1st. of the Emperor Leo, made Bishop of Alexandria, by the People of that City, (Proterius the Orthodox Bishop being then 
(i) Ibidem.  living and in full possession of the See) and ordained by only two Bishops, and those besides Heretics, and as such judicially condemned. Being made Bishop after this irregular manner, his Predecessor Proterius was in a little time after murdered, as 'twas thought, by his procurement. After some time he was 
(k) Evag. l. 2. c. 11.  deposed and banished by the Authority of the Emperor, and the Judgement of the Bishops of the Catholic Church, and an Orthodox Person, Timotheus Salofaciolus, was constituted his Successor. After 18 years Salofaciolus was 
(l) Ibid. l. 3. c. 4.  deposed by the sole Authority of the Heretical Usurper Basiliscus, and Aelurus being recalled from Banishment, was again made Bishop of Alexandria. Whilst he was at Constantinople with the Emperor Basiliscus, Acatius the stout and Orthodox Patriarch of that City, would not suffer him to enter into any of his Churches. And why not? Not because he was substituted in the room of one unjustly deposed by the bare Authority of Basiliscus, but because he was a Heretic and a Murderer. So Pope Simplicius, in one of his 
(b) Epist 6. E ᵗ dilectionis tuae laudando constantiam multum nobis, imo ipsi Domino placere memoravinus, quod damnatum hominem, non solum fidei, sed eti●m parrici●ii causâ nullam Constantino, olis Ecclesiam introire permiseris.  Epistles to Acacius. Thy constancy, says he, is praise worthy both in the sight of God and in ours, in that thou wouldst not suffer that condemned Person to enter into any of the Churches of Constantinople, not only because he was a Heretic, but likewise because he was a Parricide.  
§. 5. In the year 482. johannes Talaias' (or Tabennesiotes) an Orthodox Patriarch of Alexandria, was deposed by the Emperor Zeno, and Petrus Mongus, one who had been formerly deposed from that See for being an Eutychian, but had now subscribed to the Orthodox Faith, and had been absolved by Acacius the Patriarch of Constantinople was made Bishop in his stead. The reason why Talaias' was deposed, was this, There having been great Seditions raised at Alexandria in the elections of the Patriarches, the Emperor had been forced to deprive that Church and People of their ancient Right of Election, and to take upon him to constitute their Patriarch himself. The Patriarch Timotheus Salofaciolus being again restored to that See, sends 
(c) Liberatus Diac. Brev. c. 16. Evag. l. 3. c. 12.  Talaias', his Oeconomus or the Treasurer of the Church, to Constantinople to the Emperor, to thank him for his restoring him, and withal to beg of him, that after his (Salofaciolus') Death, the Church of Alexandria might have a free Election. This the Emperor grants, but suspecting that Talaias' might have took upon him to negotiate this Affair, that so he himself might obtain the dignity, he made him take an Oath that he himself would never endeavour to obtain it. Talaias' returning home with the Emperor's Grant, was, after the Death of Salofaciolus, chosen Patriarch by the Orthodox party, and the Emperor disliking the Election, deposed him as guilty of Perjury. That Talaias' was really guilty, he himself would never acknowledge, alleging that it was only because he was Orthodox, that he was deposed. But guilty or not guilty, deposed he was, and that too by barely the Emperor's Authority, as appears from 
(d) L. 3. c. 12, 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.  Evagrius, 
(e) Breviario c. 17. Quos jucundissime suscepit Acacius, & imperatori praesentavit, & persuasit ei, ut scriberet Apollonio Augustali, & duci Perganio, ut joannem ab Alexandrina sede, quasi ean contra suum jusjurandum, quod in regiâ civitate dedit, arripuisset, expelleret. joannes Talaia judicatur à Zenone episcopatu pelli. Vide c. 18.  Liberatus Diaconus, and the Epistles of Pope 
(f) Verbis infrà adducendis.  Gelasius, that he had been canonically chosen and ordained, and to all intents and purposes, fully confirmed by the Catholic Bishops of the district of Alexandria, is apparent from an Epistle of Pope 
(a) Epist. 17. dat. mense julio an. 482. Nuper ab Aegyptiâ Synodo quae & numero plurima, & fidei Catholicae esset communione suffulta, atque ab ipso omni propemodum clero Alexandrinae sedis ad nos ex m●re relatio missa patesecit, sancte memoriae fratrem quondam & coepiscopum nostrum obijsse Timotheum, inque ejus vicem consonâ fidelium voluntate joannem, cui ad sacerd●tium constare crederentur omnia, subrogatum, etc.  Simplicius to Acacius, as likewise from 
(b) Brev. c. 17. Vide quoque Gesta de nomine Acacii.  Liberatus Diaconus, who tell us besides, That he had sent about his Synodical Epistles, and that after he was ejected he never surrendered up his Right, but still laid claim to the See of Alexandria, is what I need not endeavour to prove. His fleeing to Rome to the Pope, that so he might be restored by his means, is notorious. So far was he indeed from resigning, that after the death of the Emperor Zeno, he applied himself to the Emperor Anastasius, and 
(c) Theophanes Chron. Nicephrus Call. l. 16. Victor Tun. ad Cons. Asterii & Praesidii.  desired him to restore him.  
Though Talaias' had been thus Arbitrarily Deposed by the Emperor, without any Synod, and without any Trial or Hearing, and had never surrendered up his Right: Yet I observe,  
First, That all they who thought his Successor Mongus a true and sincere Convert to the Orthodox Faith, and in that respect sufficiently qualified, very freely acknowleged him, and Communicated with him.  
1. Acacius the Patriarch of Constantinople did so; though in all other Cases he had always shown a great deal of Courage, and Resolution, and Zeal for the Orthodox Faith. When the Usurper Basiliscus had Issued out a Decree against the Council of Chalcedon, and in Obedience to that at least 500 Bishops had deserted the Orthodox Profession, he stoutly stood up for the Faith, and so 
(d) Evag. l. 3. c. 7. Theodorus Lector. l. 1. p. 556. Author Vitae S. Danielis Stylitae ap Su●ium in Decemb. c. 41. Acacium qui tunc sedem tenebat pontificalem, qui rectam quidem defendebat rationem, illius autem dogmatum tempestati spiritus ferv●re & dicendi libertate, vehementer resitebat, vult Basiliscus morte mulclare.  briskly opposed him, that the Tyrant was forced to recall his Edict. At the same time when Aelurus the Heretical Patriarch of Alexandria would have gone to Church at Constantinople though supported and patronised by the Emperor, yet he would not permit him to enter into any Church there. Upon this account (as has been above observed) his Constancy is highly praised by Pope Simplicius; And by the same Pope he is 
(e) Epist. ad Archimandritas Constantinop.  elsewhere, Entitled, Probatissimus Sacerdos. And even at that time that he Communicated with Mongus he retained the same Zeal, and could never be persuaded to Communicate with one whom he himself thought an Eutychian, or an Enemy of the Council of Chalcedon. When Calendion the Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch was turned out by the Emperor, and a Notorious Heretic, Petrus Gnapheus, was made Patriarch in his place, there was nothing 
(f) Cui usque in finem se non communicasse gloriabatur Acacius. Gelasius P. 1. Epist. ad Orient. Episcopos.  could ever persuade him to receive him into Communion; and he joined 
(g) Epist. Faelicis III. ad Gnapheum & ad In p. Zenonem, & Acacii ipsius Epistolae ad Gnapheum ap. Tom. 4. Concil.  with Pope Felix III. to Depose him. And the same Zeal he showed in Respect to Mongus himself: For as soon as he had heard that Mongus had Condemned the Council of Chalcedon, he 
(a) Evag. l. 3. c. 16.  sent away immediately to Alexandria to inquire into the Truth of the Accusation. Whether Mongus had really done so, is uncertain: Certain it is, That he produced to Acacius' Messengers certain Acts to prove himself Innocent; and that if he had appeared to have been Guilty, Acacius would have utterly rejected him. If the Writers of the Church of Rome have Condemned Acacius as an ill Man, and a Heretic, we know that they did it, not because he really was so, but because he Communicated with Mongus, whom the Popes of that time accounted and Condemned as a Heretic: And we know very well why the Popes did so; They knew that Mongus had 
(b) Vide Evag. l. 3. c. 17.22. Gelasius Papa Lepist. ad orient. Episc. Sed solvit illum auctoritate suâ prius Acacius, & sic suscepit.  subscribed to the Orthodox Faith, and that he had been absolved by Acacius; But because it was done by Acacius, and not by the Pope, they looked upon that Fact as Derogatory to the See of Rome; and therefore to maintain their own Grandeur, they declared the Absolution of Mongus Invalid, and that consequently he was still to be accounted a Heretic. Then Acacius was Excommunicated by Pope Felix III. as one that Communicated with a Heretic, so in show: but the true Reason was, because he endeavoured to advance the See of Constantinople above that of Rome. This Excommunication was the Reason, why some later Writers, even amongst the Greeks, are wont to speak of Acacius as of one inclined to the Eutychians; so besides a great many others, Theophanes the Chronographer, and the Patriarch Photius in a Treatise 
(c) De Episcopis & Metropolitis, etc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  not yet Published. Though Acacius during all his Life-time, and for many years after, was highly honoured by the Orthodox at Constantinople, and by the generality of the Eastern Church, as a great and truly Orthodox Patriarch, and no notice at all was taken of the Pope's Excommunication; yet at last, after the Expiration of 37 years, by the importunity of Pope Hormisdas, that so the two Churches, the Eastern and the Western might be Reconciled, 
(d) In the beginning of the Emperor justin. Photius in the place above quoted, says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  his Name was struck out of the Diptyches. Then the Greeks began to imitate the Latins, and to speak ill of him whom before they had deservedly Honoured. It is certain, in a word, that whatever Mongus in reality was in the life time of Acacius, yet outwardly he seemed to be Orthodox. If he was in reality a Heretic, that Acacius knew not, and according to 
(e) Defence. 3. capit. l. 7. c. 3.  Facundus, Aliud est, si quisque simpliciter in Haeretico dolos suos occuliente fallatur, ut eum putet Orthodoxum: Et aliud, si ipsammet ejus Haeresim agnitam sectetur atque defendat. Non debet crimini deputari simplicium non intellecta versutia malignorum.  
2. So did likewise Fravites the Successor of Acacius. As he took no notice of the Pope's Excommunication of Acacius, so as soon as he was made Patriarch, be sent away his 
(a) Evag. l. 3. c. 23.  Communicatory Letters to Mongus.  
3. So did likewise Martyrius, the 
(b) Cyrilla● Seyth●pol. V●tâ S. Euthymii p. 86. & V. S. Sabae p. 244, 245.  Orthodox Patriarch of jerusalem, who flourished in the time of Acacius. With Mongus (says 
(c) L. 3. c. 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Evagrius) Communicated Acacius the Patriarch of Constantinople and Martyrius the Patriarch of Jerusalem sent him his Synodical Letters.  
4. So did in a word all the Greek or Eastern Catholics, as many as thought him no Heretic, not taking any notice at all of his being put into the place of another Deposed without any Synod. This appears from the 
(d) Epist. ad Orient. Episcopos. Ta'en istud nemo discutiebat, synodum nemo poscebat, passim omnia li●ite fieri à quibuscunque videbantur; nullum discrimen rerum, nulla examinatio postulabatur ecclesiae, sed prout de uno quoque venisset in mentem, de suis urbibus Catholic●s pellebatur Episcopus, non solìam Metropolitanus, sed etiam tertiae (sc. Antiachenae) & secundae sedis Antistes. In his nulla rerum vestigatio quaerebatur, nulla facienda concilia jactabantur, etc. Certe quae sedes Apostolica decreverat, Orientalibus Episcopis non innotuisse jactatur— Vbi tamen non solum reus tenetur Acacius, sed omnes Pontifices Orientales, qui pari modo in haec cecidere contagia, merit●que simili damnatione tenentur obstricti, etc.  Epistles of Pope Gelasius 1. Omnes Pontifices Orientales: So Gelasius says expressly; who, because it was done without the consent of the Popes his Predecessors, and because he himself accounted Mongus a Heretic, is very angry with 'em for it. Neither were they compelled to it by the Patriarch Acacius, as Theophanes, who lived at that time when Acacius was accounted a Heretic, would needs persuade us. For 'tis plain from Pope Gelasius ad Episcopos Orientales, that they all did it readily, and that no one pretended that he had been compelled to it.  
Secondly, I observe, That among all those who refused to Communicate with Mongus, there is no one said to have done so on the account of his being Constituted in the place of one Vnsynodically Deposed, that their only Reason was, because they accounted him a Heretic. So Theophanes supposes of those Eastern Bishops and others, who he says were compelled by Acacius to receive Mongus into Communion.  
1. It is plain from the Epistle of the Bishops of Dardania to Pope Gelasius, That that was their only Reason. They only allege he was a Heretic, say nothing of the unsynodical Deprivation of his Predecessor.  
2. The same is intimated by Evagriut concerning Calendion the Patriarch of Antioch. In his Letters, says he, to the Emperor Zeno, and Acacius, he called Peter (Mongus) an Adulterer, 
(a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. l. 3. c. 16.  saying, That being at Alexandria he Anathematised the Council of Chalcedon.  
3. Euphemius (says the same 
(a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 3. c. 23.  Author) being made Patriarch of Constantinople in the room of Fravitas deceased, received the Synodical Epistle which Mongus had written to Fravitas, and when he found that he Anathematised the Council of Chalcedon, (so he ventured to do as soon as Acacius was Dead, which he dared not do before, at least not publicly) he was very much troubled and broke off from his Communion. Hence it plainly appears that before that time he freely Communicated with him, and that now he broke off upon only the account of Heresy; yet how Orthodox a Person he was, and how stout and courageous a Bishop, is very Notorious. That sufficiently appears from his Behaviour to Anastasius. When being a great Person in the Court of the Emperor Zeno, Anastasius had discovered his Inclination to Eutychianism, and did something prejudicial to the Cause of the Orthodox, Euphemius the Patriarch 
(b) Theoph. Chron. p. 115.  thrust him out of the Church, and threatened him, that if he did not desist from his Practices, he would shave his Head for him, and deliver him up to the Mockeries of the Rabble. When the same Anastasius was to be Crowned Emperor in the room of Zeno, he 
(c) Evag. l. 3. c. 32. Theodorus Lector l. 2. p. 558.  refused to give his consent till he had forced him to give him an Assurance under his Hand, That he never would innovate in Matters of Religion. And he afterwards so stoutly opposed him, as to suffer Expulsion and Banishment.  
4. As it appears from 
(d) L. 3. c. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Evagrius and others, That the Proterians, or the Orthodox of Egypt, acknowleged Mongus for their Bishop; so we are told by 
(c) Brev. c. 18.  Liberatus Diaconus, that when it was Reported that he had Anathematised the Council of Chalcedon, they that believed he had done so separated from him. Et his ita gestis, abscesserunt quidam à Petri Communione, & Romam nuntiaverunt Papae Romae.  
5. When Pope Simplicist had received a Letter from the Emperor concerning his design to Depose Talaias', he was so far well enough satisfied, and nothing displeased him, till Reading further in the Letter he found that a Heretic, i. e. one whom he accounted a Heretic, was designed for his Successor. This he owns in his Letter to Acacius. 
(f) Epist. 17. Cum ecce secundum Consuetudinem mihi talia dispenenti Tranquillissimi Principis scripta sunt reddita, quibus memoratum tanquam perjurii reum, quod Fraternitati quoque tuae non esse diceretur incognitum, Sacerdotio perhiberet indignum. Illico retraxi pedem, & meam retocavi super ejus Confirmatione sententiam, ne quid contra tantum ac tale Testimonium praeproperè fecisse judicarer. Sed illud me non mediocriter fecit attonitum, quod insdem literis suis Petrum, qui Haereticorum socius dudum extitisse probetur & Princeps, quod Conscientiam dilectionis tuae mem●nimus non latere, instructionesque ipsiss, quibus faerit consutatus, nosse considimus, quemque etiam dubium non sit adhuc extra Communionem durare Catholicam, saepéque nos de eodem ex illâ urbe pellendo scripsisse sit certum, ad Praefatae Ecclesiae regimen existimet provehendum, etc.  When, says he, according to Custom I was about to send to John my Confirmatory Letters, I received a Letter from the Emperor, in which he declared him unworthy of the Dignity, as being guilty of Perjury. I forthwith slept, and recalled my Sentence of Confirmation, lest I should be judged to have acted rashly in opposition to so great a Testimony. But this extremely astonished me, that in the same Letter he mentions that he thought fit to promote Peter in his room, one who was ere while a Ringleader of the Heretics, and is still to be presumed to be out of the Communion of the Church. He adds, That if Peter (Mongus) did 〈◊〉 to return to the Church, he could not be made a Bishop till by Penance, according to the Rules of the Church, he had made ample Satisfaction; That it was not safe for the Church that he should be promoted to that Bishopric, lest by making a show of being a Convert he should propagate his Heresy. He begs Acacius to do his utmost endeavour with the Emperor, that Mongus might not be made Bishop; 
(a) Opportunitatibus ergo repertis, Clementissimi Principis voluntatem incessabiliter pro side Catholicâ supplicando & ab his sedulo revocare quae nociva sunt Dogmati Christiano, etc.  to intercede with him incessantly for the Catholic Faith, that what was done in prejudice to it might be Revoked. Concerning the Unlawfulness of a Bishop's succeeding another before that other was Synodically Deposed, not a word. The same Pope in another Epistle to Acacius, which in order follows the former, but was written before it, and before these times just after the Emperor Zeno was restored upon the Expulsion of Basiliscus, when the Heretic Timotheus Aelurus was made Bishop of Alexandria in the room of Timotheus Salofaciolus the Orthodox Patriarch, whom Basiliscus had Deposed; I say, in that Epistle he desires Acacius to take care to intercede with the Emperor that the Heretical Bishops might be turned out and Banished, and that either the ejected Orthodox Bishops might be Restored, or at least new Orthodox Bishops be Created. Quatenus his submotis atque in solitudinis perpetua relegatione damnatis, Antistites Cathelici deceptis vel reddantur Ecclesiis vel creentur. Whether old ones or new ones, was to him altogether indifferent; he only desired they should be Orthodox. So (as is above observed in the foregoing Section) he highly extols Acacius' Constancy in forbidding Aelurus to enter into any of his Churches, because he was a Heretic and a Murderer; takes no notice at all of his being put into the room of Salofaciolus Vnsynodically Deposed.  
6. Pope Felix III. in his two first Pathetical Epistles which he wrote in his own Name, and the Name of a Synod of Rome, to Acacius and the Emperor, concerning the promotion of Mongus, takes no notice at all of Talaias' being Deposed without a Synod: He only complains that Mongus was a Heretic. So likewise in his sixth Epistle to Acacius, wherein he Excommunicates him, and declares him Deposed; the great Reason assigned, is, because he continued to Communicate with the Heretic Mongus. And though there are other pretended Crimes charged upon him, yet concerning any Crime committed by him in Communicating with a Person put into the place of another Vnsynodically Deposed, there is nothing alleged.  
We may gather lastly from Evagrius, That Talaias' himself did not think it Unlawful for the People and Clergy of Egypt to accept of another Patriarch, if that other had been likewise Orthodox. He flees, 
(b) L. 3. c. 15.  says Evagrius, to Rome, and raises there very great Stirs, affirming (not that another could not be put into his place, because he was not Deposed by a Synod, but) that it was for his defending the Council of Chalcedon that he was Deposed, and that he that was Constituted his Successor was an Enemy to the Doctrine of that Council. By these Allegations, Simplicius Pope of Rome was so far moved, as to write to the Emperor concerning him. And the Emperor returned him this Answer, That 'twas only for Perjury that he had been Deposed, not on any other account.  
7. In the year 483. Calendion the Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch was Deposed 
(a) Evag. l. 3. c. 16. Liberatus Diac. c. 4.18.  by the Emperor Zeno, as suspected to have conspired against him with the Rebels ilus and Leontius. That he was Deposed without any Synod, is manifest from the express Testimony of 
(b) Epist. ad Orient. Episcopos. Sed miramur, cur eos non pudeat in istorum damnatione de Synodo non fact● causari, cum sciant tot tantosque Pontifices (Calendionem, Talaiam, etc.) nullâ Synodo fuisse depulsos, etc. So expressly in several other Places. See the place above quoted, where by tertiae Sedis Antistes is meant Calendion of Antioch.  Pope Gelasius I.  
Though Deposed in this manner, yet his Successor Petrus Gnapheus, a notorious Heretic, was rejected by none of the Orthodox upon any other account, but because he was a Heretic.  
1. Pope Felix III. in his two Epistles to Petrus Gnapheus, (in the latter of which he declares him Deposed) and in another, which he writes to the Emperor to desire that he might be Ejected, takes no notice at all of Calendion, no notice at all of his being Vnsynodically Deposed; the only thing he objects against Gnapheus, is, his being a Heretic. For this, and for this alone, he Deposes him; and he plainly intimates, that if he would forsake his Heresy, there was nothing else to be objected against him. He tells the Emperor, That 
(c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.  the Church had Deposed him because he was a Heretic. and to him himself, 
(d) Epist. 3. ad fi●em. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Forsake (says he) I beseech thee this Error; Thou art fallen, do not lie as thou art; Thou hast Sinned, do not continue to do so; The Holy Church of God expects thee, she desires to embrace thee a Penitent, and a Convert to her Faith; She cries out to thee by us, Come to me all you that Labour, etc. God wills not, most Honoured Brother, the Death of a Sinner, but that he should be Converted and Live—. These Things, I, together with a Synod, have written to thee, Conjuring thee by God and the Holy Angels, that thou Preach these Things; and agree with us in the True Faith; That so our Faith may remain Vnadulterated to the Glory of God. The same is to be said of all those Bishops whose Epistles to Gnapheus are extant in the 4th. Tom of the Councils; not one takes notice of his being Invalidly Constituted in the room of Calendion. Heresy is the only Thing they object, that the only Thing they exhort him to forsake.  
2. Quintianus Asculanus, 
(a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉;— (ad finem) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Thou proceedest, says he, in thy Heretical Doctrines not withstanding the Admonitions of many Bishops, and particularly Pope Felix, who have exhorted thee to forsake 'em, and to preach the Orthodox Faith.— Who can bear with thee, whilst thou thus pervertest the Gospel of Christ?— Let thy Liturgy be as that of the Orthodox is (without the addition of that Clause, who waste Crucified for us) and that punishment, which is intended for thee, shall be slopped. If thou dost not do so, there will be sent thee from Pope Felix a Deprivation.  
3. justinus Siculus. 
(b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.  Cease, says he, from this Wickedness, and then thou wilt not be the cause of the Ruin of those that are more ignorant, lest our Pope Felix should according to the Canons pass Sentence upon thee.— Receive my Admonition as the Admonition of a Brother. Extinguish the Pride of Heretics, and become a Pastor to thy Sheep, not a Wolf, etc.  
4. Acacius Patriarch of Constantinople. 
(c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  Walk, says he, and lead thy Flock in the high way, in which the Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon walked, that thou may'st be a true Highpriest of God.  
5. To the same purpose, Antheon Bishop of Arsinoe, and Faustus of Apollonius. 
(d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.  I have heard, beloved, (says the latter) from many Bishops, That thou turn'st away from the Orthodox Faith, and in all place, they talk of it; I therefore thought it necessary to inquire of thee thyself, whether it be really so, etc.  
6. Pamphilus' Bishop of Abydus. 
(e) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  This Reprehension I send thee, that returning to the true Faith, thou may'st enjoy the Dignity of thy Throne; But if thou dost not return to the Orthodox Faith, I will Excommunicate thee.  
7. Ascelepiades Bishop of Trallium. 
(f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  The whole World is offended at thy addition to the Trishagium; and the Pastors of the Church are deservedly excited to pronounce an Anathema against thee. Give us, I beseech thee, some little Signification of thy being Orthodox, etc.  
The only Person that takes any notice of his being irregularly Constituted, is, Flaccianus Rhodopensis; and of him 'tis uncertain, whether, when he says, That Gnapheus was irregularly Constituted, he had any respect to the Deprivation of Calendion. For Gnapheus had been formerly deposed from the See of Antioch, as a Heretic; and therefore since he had never been absolved by the Church, he might well be said, even upon that account, to have been irregularly promoted: And to 
* At enim cribratus es Canonicè à Praesulibus nostris, id est, à Principe Apostolorum Petro, cui Dominus ait: Quodcunque ligaveris super terram, erit ligatum & in ●●●lo. At nec hoc meruisti, ut per dignam poenitentiam relaxeris, in temetipsum statuens, ut perseveres in hac Danmatione: Sed in hac vitâ spem habes tantummodo in principibus, ut redeas ubi dignè ejectus es à Sanctâ sede; ideóque perfectius es miserabilior omnibus hominibus, tanquam minimè desiderium habens ad Deum vivum & ejus regnum Coelorum: veruntamen noli frustra pulvere dealbari, quia irregulariter Sacerdotii principatum arripuisti: neque infleris adversus nos pie rectéque praedicantes.  this Flaccianus seems to allude. Whatever was his meaning, he only barely mentions it, does not offer it as a Reason, why the Orthodox did not, or ought not, to Communicate with him. He insists, like the rest, upon only his being a Heretic.  
I am not ignorant that these Epistles of Pope Felix, Quintianus, justinus, Acacius, Antheon, Faustus, Pamphilus, and Asclepiades to Petrus Gnapheus, are looked upon by 
(g) Valesius Tract. de Petro Fullone. 
D. Allix de Trisagio.   some Learned Men not to be Genuine. But I likewise know that that Opinion is by 
(h) D. Cave Hist. Litter. in justino Siculo.  others opposed. However it be: This at least is apparent, that he or they, who wrote 'em, (and 'tis certain that they are very ancient) did not doubt of the lawfulness of Communicating with a Bishop, who was put into the place of another unjustly Deposed by the Lay-Power, provided he were not a Heretic; or, if he were, would leave his Heresy and come over to the Orthodox Faith. And here I must observe, that the Epistle last quoted, viz. That of Flaccianus, is Condemned as Spurious, by even 
(i) Dr. Cave loco cit.  those who will not yield that the rest should be thought so.   

CHAP. VI  
Macedonius Patriarch of Constantinople being violently Deposed by the Heretical Emperor Anastasius, his Successor Timotheus is acknowleged by all that accounted him Orthodox, though at the same time they professed that the Deprivation of Macedonius was unjust, and could never be induced by any Terrors to subscribe to it, viz by Flavianus Patriarch of Antioch, Elias Patriarch of Jerusalem, the Abbot of the Monastery of Studium, the (Orthodox) People of Constantinople, by the great Abbots of Palestine, S. Sabas, and S. Theodosius, and by all Palestine in general, at that time exceedingly flourishing for its zealous Profession of the Orthodox Faith. The Calumnies of the Vindicator concerning the Apostasy of the Patriarches Flavianus and Elias, confuted. Timotheus not known to them to be a Heretic when they Communicated with him. They are Honoured by the Church as Saints.  
IN the year 
(a) In the 21st year of Anastasius, says Theophanes, and out of him Cedrenus.  511, Macedontus the Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople was Deposed by the bare Authority of the Heretical Emperor Anastasius, and that because he was Orthodox, and refused to Condemn the Council of Chalcedon. Though Macedonius was so unjustly Deposed, yet Timotheus, whom the Emperor had constituted in his place, was received and acknowleged as true Bishop of Constantinople by all those that accounted him Orthodox. This is one of the Examples produced by the Author of the Baroccian Treatise.  
Evagrius says, That the Patriarch Macedonius 
(b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, l. 3. c. 32.  went away privately from the City of Constantinople by the persuasions of Celer the Captain of the Emperor's Guards; By which he means that the Captain of the Guards being commanded by the Emperor to carry him away into Banishment, persuaded him to go away with him peaceably and privately for the avoiding of a Tumult. That the Patriarch did not resign, but was forced to go away, and looked upon himself still as the Rightful Patriarch, is apparent from the express Testimony of several Authors, and Evagrius himself in another place affirms, That he was 
(c) C. 44. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  ejected. The Emperor, says 
(d) Hist. Eccl. l. 2. p. 565. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, &c,  Theodorus Lector, supposing that Macedonius, if he should have been judged, would, as innocent, have been defended by the People, sent him away by force to Chalcedon by Night, and commanded him to be carried from thence to Eucha●●a; and the next day he made one Timotheus Patriarch in his stead. Anastasius the Emperor (says 
(a) Chron. Anastasius Imperator Macedonium Constantinopolitum Episcopum cum quibusdam Clericis nolentem Synodi Chalced. Decreta damnare, ab Ecclesiâ rapit, & in exilium mitti, atque pro eo Timotheum Presb. Episcopum facit.  Victor Tununensis) deposed Macedonius the Bishop of Constantinople by Violence, and sent him away into Banishment, because he refused to Condemn the Council of Chalcedon, and in his stead he made the Presbyter Timotheus Bishop. 
(b) Chronogr. p. 133. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. etc.  Theophanes, the Emperor commanded Celer to fetch Macedonius out of his Palace by force, who cried out, That he was ready to justify himself, not only before the Emperor, but even before all the People in the Theatre— Thus he commanded him to be led away forcibly by Night, first to Chalcedon, and thence to Euchaita, not daring to bring him to a Trial 
(c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  for fear of the People, and the next day be made one Timotheus Bishop. To these may be added, 
(d) Chron.  Marcellinus Comes, 
(e) V. S. Sabae, c. 50.  Cyrillus Scythopolitanus, 
(f) Brev. c. 19  Liberatus Diaconus, 
(g) Syn. 110.  Libellus Synodicus, 
(h) Annal.  Zonaras, 
(i) Chron. p. 360.  Cedrenus, 
(k) L. 16. c. 26.  Nicephorus Callisti. After Macedonius was Banished, and Timotheus Ordained Patriarch in his room, the Emperor to persuade the World that it was not for nothing, but for very great Crimes, that he was Banished, ordered a mock Trial: Accordingly he was tried when absent, Accused, Judged, Condemned, by the very same Persons. His Mock-Condemnation, or Deprivation, being sent him, he rejected it as null and void in itself, because his Judges were Heretics. Of this 
(l) Chron. p. 133, 134. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Perpendens ●orro Anastasius Macedonium, indictà causà, nullàve depositionis in eum latâ sententiâ in exilium ejectum, misso Magistro (Celere) deportari cum jussit (so it ought to be readered, not diem ei dixit) ultra Claud●●polim Honoriadis Provinciae. Tidem vero cum essent & judices & testes & accusatores (so it ought to be rendered) ejectum jam ante judicium & absentem muneris abrogatione damnant, & per Episcopos & Presbyterum Cyzicenum depositionis sententiam mittunt. Quos ubi conspexit Macedonius, etiam ante sermonis exordiam interrogat, Num Chalcedonensem Synodum admittant? Respondentibus illis, Tu quis es? Dixit ipse. Sabbatiani aut Macedonianis (Haeretici) si ●●hi depositionis deferrent sententiam, me admittere oporteret? Et ita re infectâ reversi sunt, ●●se vero Euchaïtam reversus est. To the same purpose Nicephorus Call. l. 16. c. 26.  Theophanes has given us a particular Account, I suppose out of the Ecclesiastical History of Theodorus Lector; for him he quotes by Name 
(m) P. 139.  a little after.  
That Timotheus, though the Deprivation of Macedonius was accounted by all the Orthodox Party to be absolutely Null, and though he was ordained Patriarch even before that Mock-Deprivation, was however acknowledged by all those of the Orthodox Party that accounted him Orthodox, is apparent from many Authorities. If he was rejected, it was only by those who believed him to be, what really he was, a Heretic. I observe in the first place, that amongst all the Authors who mention the Deprivation of Macedonius, there is not so much as one that either says expressly, or gives any hint, that any one separated from Timotheus upon that account. They observe indeed, that many of the Followers of Macedonius were at the same time Persecuted, and Banished. So 
(a) P. 133. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Cedrenus has almost the same words.  Theophanes, Cedrenus, and 
(b) L. 16. c. 26. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Nicephorus Callisti. But then at the same time they intimate, that it was for the same Reason that Macedonius himself was Banished; viz. Because they were great Sticklers for the Orthodox Faith; and because for the sake of the Orthodox Faith they still adhered to him. In the 
(c) Ap. Acta Conc. sub Mennâ Act. v. p. 164. Secundum Capitulum in Libellis continebatur, ut qui propter causam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. praedictorum Patrum (Euphemii dicimus & Macedonii) relegati fuerunt & fugati, reversi restituantur propriis gradibus. Quoniam igitur justa petitio est, ut primae consequens, deliberavimus ut praedicti adjuventur, etc. To the same purpose the Petitio Monachorum ad Synodum, ibid. p. 172.  Relatio, or Libellus Petitionis, which was presented to john the Successor of Timotheus by the Synod of Constantinople, after the Death of the Emperor Anastasius, concerning the Condemnation of the Heretic Severus, and the restoring of the Names of Euphemius and Macedonius to the Sacred Diptyches; It is likewise desired, that they that had been Banished, or forced to flee away upon the account of Euphemius and Macedonius, might be recalled and restored to their respective Places. These things had been demanded by the People in their public Acclamations; and that the aforesaid Persons were banished and forced to flee away for their zealous defence of the Catholic Faith, the same People testify by their Acclamations just after the aforesaid Petition was delivered: Their words there are 
(d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ibid. p. 181.  Let those that are in banishment for the Faith be recalled and restored to the Church.  
Secondly, Theophanes says of the Illustrious and Religious Lady juliana, That she was 
(e) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.  so great a Defender of the Council of Chalcedon, that the Emperor could not possibly persuade her with all his Art to communicate with Timotheus, neither could Timotheus himself persuade her, though he often endeavoured to do it. The reason, why she would not communicate with Timotheus, was, as may be gathered from these words of Theophanes, not because Macedonius was unjustly deposed, but because she accounted Timotheus an Enemy to the Council of Chalcedon.  
Thirdly, 'Tis observed by the same Author, That though some Orthodox Bishops refused to communicate with Timotheus (because they thought him a Heretic) yet others, and those two not the most timorous, received him into Communion, though they absolutely refused to subscribe to Macedonius' Deprivation, and Condemned it as Unjust and Uncanonical. 
(a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Timotheus, says he, sent his Synodical Spistles, and a Copy of Macedonius ' s Deprivation, to the several Bishops to be subscribed. Those that were more stout refused to subscribe to either; they that were timorous subscribed through fear of the Emperor to both. Others kept the midway, and subscribed to the former, but refused to subscribe to the latter; which (in effect) was the same thing, though to them they seemed to be different. By these last Words is meant, That they that subscribed to Timotheus' Synodical Epistle, though they did not themselves believe him to be a Heretic, yet because he really was so, did by consequence, and by accident, as much advance the Cause of the Heretics, as if they had likewise approved of Macedonius' Deprivation. Amongst those Bishops who accepted of Timotheus' Synodical Epistle, and by doing so received him into Communion, and owned him as Bishop of Constantinople, two were the Famous Flavianus and Elias, the Patriarches of Antioch and jerusalem. This is in express Terms attested by Cyrillus Scythopolitanus, a very good Author in these Matters, as one of our Adversaries, the Learned Vindicator acknowleges; tho' 
(b) A farther Account of the Baroccian MS.  another (who either does not know how to distinguish a good Author from a bad one, or at least for a Cause, can Vilify any good Author) is pleased to affirm, That Cyril's Legend is too weak an Authority to persuade any Man that Elias (and Flavianus) accepted of Timotheus'● Synodical Epistle. We will leave our Author to inform himself a little better of the Character of Writers, and will give you here the words of Cyrillus. The 
(c) Vitâ S. Sabae, c. 50. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Emperor (says he) having driven Macedonius out of his See, placed Timotheus in his room, and required Flavianus and Elias to unite themselves to him in Communion. And they indeed assented to his Synodical Letters, but they would not do so to the Acts of Macedonius ' s Deprivation. Upon which account the Emperor was extremely enraged against them both, and a great storm hung over both Churches. 'Tis observed by the Author of the Baroccian Treatise, That the great Elias, Bishop of Jerusalem, embraced the Communion of three Patriarches of Constantinople, all alive together, viz. Euphemius, Macedonius, and Timotheus, being troubled indeed at the Ejectment of him in Possession, but receiving the Successor also, because of his Orthodox Faith. That Timotheus, Flavianus, and Elias, were Fellow-Communicants, is intimated likewise by 
(d) Brev. c. 18. Post quem ordinatus est Alexandrie joannes Machiota (Niciola aut Nicaeota) qui etiam ipse suos priores (Eutychianos) secutus est, suscipiens quidem unitivum Zenonis Edictum, non autem Chalcedonense Concilium & Epistolam Papae Leonis, tanquam non communicaret Flaviano Antiocheno, & Eliae Hierofolymorum Episcopis, & Timotheo Constantinopolitano. Dicebat enim imperfectè Edictum se habere, nec ad unitatem sufficere, quod non in Anathemate Synodi fuisset factum. Deinde cum ei Imp. Anastasius scripsisset, ut univetur Constantinopolitano Episcopo: Haec rescripsit, Quia (i. e. quod) non sufficeret ei ad perfectain unitatem, eo quod non anathematizaret Synodum.  Liberatus Diaconus.  
'Tis acknowleged by the Learned Vindicator; who, because their Opinion and Practice was so directly contrary to his, is resolved to be revenged on 'em. They were Men, says he, of no Principles, turned frequently Apostates to the Eutychian Heretics, very frequently and easily-varied from the Principles which they themselves professed and owned for Principles. We see, says he, that they corresponded with so Notorious a Heretic as Timotheus, (which is more than ever our Authors own Principles would have allowed 'em) rather than hazard their Places. Why should we then wonder if they had corresponded with Schismatics, even such as themselves took for such? Much more of the same Nature he very Unworthily throws at 'em. To all which I Answer,  
1. That when they Subscribed to the Synodical Letters of Timotheus, at the same time they absolutely refused to Subscribe to the Deprivation of Macedonius, because they thought it Unlawful; and though, as Cyrillus tells us, the Emperor was extremely enraged against 'em, because they refused to Subscribe to the latter, and immediately resolved to Depose 'em, yet they never could be prevailed with to do it. They still continued to Communicate with Timotheus, but to their dying day did never Subscribe to the Deprivation of Macedonius. From hence it is manifest, that they received Timotheus into Communion, not because they dared not hazard their Places, but because they thought they might Lawfully do it.  
2. It is utterly untrue that they knew Timotheus to be a Heretic. Had our Author judged Candidly as he ought to have done, he would easily have judged of himself, that the Synodical Letters, which Timotheus sent to Flavianus and Elias, contained in 'em nothing Heretical, since such Men as they received 'em. And had he looked nicely into the Histories and Concerns of those Times, he would have found, that Timotheus did not presently appear to be a Heretic. They that knew him very well, or were nicely informed concerning him, did believe that he was so, and accordingly withdrew from his Communion: But certain it is, that to the Catholics who did not well know him he pretended to be one of their Party. It is certain that after he was made Patriarch, he 
(a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (Praefectum Monasterii Studitarum) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Theodorus Lector l. 2. P. 563.  denounced an Anathema against all those that were either averse to, or Anathematised the Council of Chalcedon. This an ancient and an authentic Historian expressly affirms. So far indeed was he from denouncing an Anathema against the Council of Chalcedon in his Synodical Letters, that 
(b) See his Words above-cited.  Liberatus Diaconus expressly asserts, that upon that very account, because he did not, the Eutychian Patriarch of Alexandria refused to Communicate with him. The same Author plainly intimates, That Timotheus (as well as Flavianus and Elias) Subscribed in his Synodical Letters to the Council of Chalcedon, and the Epistle of Pope Leo. joannes Nicaeotes, (says he) the Patriarch of Alexandria pursued the steps of his (Eutychian) Predecessors, receiving indeed the uniting Edict of Zeno, Non autem Chalcedonense Concilium & Epistolam Papae Leonis, tanquam non communicaret Flaviano Antiocheno, & Eliae Hierosolymorum Episcopis, & Timotheo Constantinopolitano. Another Authority is that of the Historian Evagrius, who 
(c) L. 4. c. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  affirms, That the Synodical Epistles of Severus, who succeeded Flavianus in the See of Antioch, about a year or two after Timotheus was made Patriarch of Constantinople, were (because they Anathematised the Council of Chalcedon) received by none of the then Patriarches, besides the Patriarches of Alexandria. Therefore, according to the Testimony of Evagrius, the Synodical Epistles of the Eutychian Severus, were rejected by Timotheus. If Evagrius was mistaken, at least from what he says it is manifest, That Timotheus was believed by many to be Orthodox. To these I add the express Testimony of Nicephorus Callisti. 
(d) L. 16. c. 32. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Elias, says he, and Flavianus received Timotheus into Communion, as seeming to be Orthodox. But the Banishment of Macedonius they did not approve off as being by Violence, and against the Laws of the Church.  
3. Though the Patriarch Flavianus was by the Persecutions of his Enemies so far prevailed upon, as to subscribe to the Condemnation of Theodoret, Ibas, etc. yet 'tis certain from the 
(d) Ap. Evag. l. 3. c. 31.  Epistle of the Monks of Palestine to Alciso, that he Condemned 'em upon Supposition that they were Nestorians. And though by repeated Persecutions he was further prevailed upon to Subscribe against the Council of Chalcedon; yet from the same Authentic Monument it is manifest, that he subscribed against the Doctrine of it only upon this Supposition, That it was (as his Potent Enemies contended) Nestorian: For it's plain, that at the very same time he owned that Council as to its Condemning Eutyches. 'Twas this Subscription of his that occasioned all those Reports which we find in some Authors, particularly in Theophanes the Chronographer, concerning his Anathematising the Council of Chalcedon. That all those Reports are very great Mistakes, and that he never could be prevailed upon (though his Persecutions were intolerable, though by all manner of Afflictions his Enemies endeavoured to force him) to Anathematise that Council, or to Subscribe to the Eutychian Heresy, and that at last, because he could not be prevailed upon, he lost his Bishopric, is very apparent from the aforesaid 
(e) Loc. Cit See likewise c. 32.  Epistle. They many ways afflicted him, as 
(f) V. Sabae, p. 308. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 By 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he does not mean, that they effectually compelled him to Anathematise the Council, but only that they endeavoured it. So the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used a little after, P. 310. So likewise by Theophanes, Chron. p. 130. twice. And so these words of Cyrillus were understood by the ancient Latin Translator of the Second Council of Nice, Act 1. where they are quoted. He renders it thus Cogentes & obinto collo huc trabentes, ut acta Concilii Chalced Anathemate prosequeretur: quo nolente, Episcopatu suo privatus in exilium quoque damnatus est.  Cyrillus Scythopelitanus says, and as it were Strangled him to make him comply; yet even at this time he Communicated still with Timotheus. How great an Honour the Orthodox had for him may be gathered from the public 
(g) Subjoined to the Epistle of the Synod of Tyre to the Synod of Constantinople, extant in the Acts of the Council sub Mennâ, Act. 5. p. 206. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Acclamations of the Orthodox Party of Tyre, just after the Death of the Emperor Anastasius. They demand that his Name, which had been struck out by the Heretics, should be again restored to the Diptyches of the Church, and are very zealous to have his Body brought to their City, that there it might be disposed of after the most honourable manner. And that this might be done ●s the Request of the Synod of Tyre to the Synod of Constantinople. 
(a) Ibid. p. 202. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Similem deprecationem super his osserimus, ut— accipiamus honorificè Corpus Spiritualis Patris nostri Flaviani Patr. Antiocheni, & restituatur catalogo Sanctorum Patrum qui in Apostolicâ sede ante defuncti sunt; & inseratur nomen ipsius venerabile sacris tabulis. justum enim est oum, qui pro Christo Deo-nostro, & ejus recta fide fatigatus est, & qui sustinuit aerumnosam sententiam eorum, qui eum calumniabantur (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.) in Communionem veniret eorum, etc.  It is just (say they) that his venerable Name should be inserted in the Sacred Diptyches, who suffered so much for Christ our God, and for the true Faith, etc. In a word, so great an Honour has the Church had all along for him, that to this very day he is Worshipped as a 
(b) Flaviani Secundi Episcopi Antiocheni, & Eliae Episcopi Hierosolymorum, qui pro Synodo-Chalced, ab Anastasio Imp. in exilium acti, victores migrarunt ad Dominum. Martyrolog. Rom. Julii 4. In Moschus' Pratum Spirituale, c. 26. 'tis said (though untruly, yet it shows how great an Opinion that Age had of him) That God revealed to him, as well as to Elias, the time of his own, and likewise of the Emperor's Death.  Confessor and a Saint. By Marcellinus Comes 
(c) Chron. ad Consul. Pauli & Musciani. , who was living at that time, he is called expressly a Confessor. By 
(d) L. 16. c. 27. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Nicephorus Callisti he is styled a very great Man.  
4. As for the Patriarch Elias, he likewise is honoured by the Church as a Saint and a Confessor, though till he was Deposed from his See he still continued to Communicate with Timotheus. As Flavianus was Deposed for his Constancy at Antioch, so was Elias a little after at jerusalem. He is called by 
(e) Vitâ S. Sabae, c. 34. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Cyrillus of Scythopolis, Elias who was truly a High Priest of God: By the Author of the 
(f) Syn. III. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Synodicon, Elias the Preacher of God: By the Author of the Baroccian Treatise, The Great, the Blessed Elias: By Nicephorus Callisti 
(g) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. , The most Celebrated Elias. And so Holy a Man was he esteemed, That 
(h) Loc. Cit c. 60.  Cyrillus says, That after his Ejectment, the time of his own, and likewise the Emperor Anastasius' Death, was Revealed by God to him. Neither was he a young Man at that time when he was Deposed, and when he Communicated with Timotheus, but a Man of a very great Age, of no less than 
(i) Cyrillus tells us, c. 60. that he was Eighty eight years old when he Died, and that he Died Ten days after the Emperor Anastasius, i. e. Anno 518.  Eighty One years, when first he began to Communicate with him, and of Consequence fully instructed in the Doctrine and Practice of the Catholic Church.  
What we Read in 
(a) L. 2. p. 501. Theophanes, who writ out of Theodorus, says the quite contrary to Theodorus, p. 130. That Elias then acknowleged the Council of Chalcedon: But I think with Valesius, That Theophanes ought to be Corrected from Theodorus, though Gore thinks the contrary, that Theophanes' is the true Reading, and that Theodorus ought to be Corrected out of him.  Theodorus Lector concerning Elias, that being Commanded by the Emperor to call a Synod, and Condemn the Council of Chalcedon, he did not indeed call a Synod, but however he himself wrote a Letter to the Emperor, in which he Anathematised Nestorius and Eutyches, Diodorus and Theodorus, and the Council of Chalcedon. This I say is a Notorious Error. It is very well observed by Baronius, That Theodorus was led into this Mistake by a Spurious Letter which the Heretics had feigned in Elias' Name. Let us hear the Monks of Palestine in their Epistle to Alciso, which was written a little after whilst Elias himself was yet living. The 
(b) Ap. Evag. l. 3. c. 31. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.  Heretics, say they, require the Bishop of Jerusalem to give 'em an account of his Faith in Writing. He accordingly sends an account of it to the Emperor by some that were Heretics. Now that Account which they produce, contains an Anathema against those who assert two Natures, (i. e. against the Council of Chalcedon, etc.) but the Bishop alleges that that is spurious and feigned by them, and produces a Copy of that which he sent, which has no such Anathema in it. This indeed is no wonder: For so the Heretics have often Corrupted the Writings of the Fathers, and have falsely ascribed the Books of Apollinaris to Athanasius, Gregorius Thaumaturgus, and (Pope) Julius; by which they have drawn over many to their Errors. So great a Man was Elias, that to bring over others of the Orthodox to their Party, the Heretics Forge an Heretical Belief in his Name. It is true, that when the Emperor Anastasius had Commanded a Synod to be called at Sidon, over which those violent Heretics, Soterichus and Xenaias, (or Philoxenus) were to preside, in order to Condemn the Orthodox Faith; Elias, together with Flavianus, that they might hinder the sitting of that Synod, or break it up without any effect, sent the Emperor a soothing and a complaisant Letter, by which the Emperor was persuaded to dismiss the Synod without doing what had been intended. 
(c) P. 131. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Theophanes says, That in that Letter Elias rejected the Council of Chalcedon; but it appears from the Words of the Letter produced by Cyrillus Scythop. that he did not reject the Doctrine of the Council, but only said, 
(d) V. Sabae, c. 52. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  That he did not approve of the Council of Chalcedon, because upon the account of that Council there had been great Scandals raised in the Church. These Words deceived the Emperor, and he broke out afterwards into a mighty Passion, when he saw that Elias was truly Orthodox, and intended nothing less than the Condemning the Orthodox Faith. 
(a) Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. etc.  Your Archbishop (says the Emperor to S. Sabas, whom Elias had sent to Constantinople,) has made himself the Champion of the Council of Chalcedon; and not only so, but has likewise drawn over to his Party Flavianus of Antioch (of whom before the Heretical Party had some hopes, but Elias had now set him beyond all their hopes)— I am not ignorant that he is at this time, and so was before, when he refused to subscribe to the Deprivation of Euphemius and Macedonius, a Defender of the Council of Chalcedon. I therefore now, as thou seest, Decree, That he be Deposed. Let your Majesty, 
(b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Elias had been a Mo●k before he was made Patriarch.  answered the great S. Sabas, be fully persuaded, That the Archbishop of our Holy City of God, who has been instructed in all Godly Doctrines by the ancient Luminaries of our Desert, those Fathers the Workers of Miracles, does reject, as well the Nestorian Division, as the Eutychian Confusion of the two Natures of our Saviour, that he keeps the midway, and inclines to neither the right Hand nor to the left. We know that he embraces the Holy Doctrines of S. Cyril, Archbishop of Alexandria, and that he Anathematizes all those that are averse to them. And therefore we beseech your Majesty, that the Holy City of Jerusalem, and our Archbishop, may remain unmolested. I could add much more to show how untruly and unaccurately the Vindicator discourses concerning the unsteddiness of the Patriarches Elias and Flavianus. But I hasten to other Examples. Only this I shall add, That as Elias continued to his Death an undaunted Champion for the Faith, so great and so singular was his Courage, as that, together with the Monks of Palestine, he denounced an Anathema upon even the Emperor himself, then alive. 
(c) L. 3. c. 34. Nicephorus Call. l. 16. c. 35. Eutychius Patr. Alex. in Annal. Arab. Tom. 2. p. 140. Cum ergo andiisset Elia Patr. Hierosol. Flavianum in exilium pulsum esse, ac Severum in locum ipsius suffectum, convoc●vit coram Sepulchro & Golgotha Monachos qui in Anastasium Imp. & Severum Patr. & quotquot ipsius sententiam amplecterentur, Anathema denunciarunt.  Evagrius speaks of it as of an Example of extraordinary stoutness. There were some, says he, of the Orthodox that struck the Emperor Anastasius ' s Name, as being a Heretic out of the Diptyches. But at Jerusalem, even whilst he was alive, he was Anathematised.  
But it was not only Elias and Flavianus those two great Patriarches of jerusalem and Antioch, that Communicated with Timotheus, and acknowleged him as Bishop of Constantinople. For,  
Fourthly, We are assured by Theodorus Lector, that the great Abbot of the Monastery of Studium at Constantinople, refused to be Consecrated by Timotheus, whilst he thought him a Heretic; but, as soon as Timotheus had given him an Assurance that he was not so, without the least scruple concerning the unjust Deprivation of his Predecessor Macedonius, he readily yielded to be Consecrated by him. The Abbot (says Theodorus) of 
(a) P. 563. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  the Monastery of Studium being Dead, Timotheus the Patriarch went to the Monastery to Consecrate a new Abbot: But he who was to be Consecrated told him, That he could not receive the Blessing from one that had Condemned the Council of Chalcedon. Timotheus hereupon denounced an Anathema against all those that were either averse to, or Condemned that Council. Then he that was to be Consecrated received the Benediction from his Hands. This is to be supposed to be the Act not only of the Abbot himself, though that alone would be very considerable, but likewise of the whole Monastery. The same thing we find related by 
(b) Chron. p. 135.  Theophanes, and 
(c) L. 16. c. 35.  Nicephorus Callisti: And they all speak of it as a thing they very well approved of.  
Fifthly, It appears from Theophanes, that the Orthodox Party of Constantinople Communicated generally with him. Timotheus (says 
(d) P. 13●. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  he) being willing to insert the Name of Severus in the Diptyches, and to strike out that of Flavianus, was hindered by the People. For all the Orthodox declined the Communion of Severus. A plain Intimation. The same is attested by 
(e) Die Dominico dam jubente Anastasio Caesare, per Marinum perqae Platonem in Ecclesiae pulpito consistentes, in Hymnum Trinitatis Deipassianorum quaternitas additur, malti Orthodoxorum pyistin● voce Psallentes perfidosque praecones clamoribus objurgantes, in ejusdem Ecclesiae gremio caesi sunt, du●●ique in carocre per●●runt: Alterâ nihilominus die in atrio Sancti Theodori majori caede Catholici pro side unicâ perculsi sunt. Ad Coss. Paulum & Muscianum.  Marcellinus Comes, who speaks of the Orthodox, their being at Church at that time when the Words, Who hast Crucified for us, were by the Command of the Emperor added to the Trisagium. Which, as he says, was the next year after the Promotion of Timotheus. I know that 
(f) L. 3. c. ult. He quotes the Epistle of Severus for what he says, but perhaps Severus only meant, That Macedonius, while in Banishment, excited the People so far, as to make 'em raise a Sedition upon that account.  Evagrius and Theophanes thought that those Words were added in the time of the Patriarch Macedonius; but Cedrenus and others agree with Marcellinus. I might add, That if Marcellinus was mistaken in placing it a year too low, yet his placing it in the time of Timotheus, is however an Argument for what we Assert; for he could not have been guilty of such a mistake, if he had 
* He lived at that time. and wrote his Chronicle within 23 years after.  known that the Orthodox did not Communicate with Timotheus.  
Sixthly, It appears from the Epistle of the Palestine Monks to Alciso, that in Palestine, not only the Patriarch Elias, but all in general, allowed of Timotheus' Communion; though at the same time they rejected the Communion of Severus, who was put into the place of Flavianus, as being a manifest Heretic. 
(a) Ap. Evag. l. 3. c. 33. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  The Synodical Epistles of Timotheus now Bishop of Constantinople, are received here in Palestine. But the Deprivations of Macedonius and Flavianus are not approved off. Neither are the Synodical Letters of Severus received here. Here it ought to be observed, how Famous and Flourishing for a vast number of Religious and Orthodox Persons Palestine was at that time. It appears from 
* V. Sabae.  Cyrillus of Scythopolis, that there flourished there at that time above 
(b) In the Desert, within a few hours of jerusalem, besides many others who inhabited on the River jordan.  Ten Thousand Orthodox Monks. And in their Name it was that the Epistle above cited was written by the Abbots and Governors of the Monasteries. How great and extraordinary Persons S. Sabas and S. Theodosius were, who were two of the Chief of the Governors of the Monks at that time, we shall show in the following Chapter. Concerning the State of Palestine in general, how generally Orthodox it was at that time, I shall produce the Testimony of the Monks themselves. 
(c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.  The Monasteries, say they, which are here, and Jerusalem itself, and most other Cities, together with their Bishops, agree in the right Faith. For all whom, and for us, we desire you, most Holy and Honoured Sir, to Pray, that we enter not into Temptation.  
Lest any one should suspect, that therefore they, of whom we have hitherto Spoken, Communicated with Timotheus as true Bishop of Constantinople, because Macedonius was Deceased; I shall here add, That it appears from Theophanes and Cedrenus, That Macedonius died on the 25th year of the Emperor Anastasius, i. e. A. D. 515. four years after he was Deposed. And from Marcellinus Comes it likewise appears, that he was alive in the Consulship of Senator, (or Cathodorus) i. e. in the year 514. It is manifest therefore that his Successor, Timotheus, was acknowledged by all those above spoken of, whilst he himself was still Living.   

CHAP. VII.  
Flavianus Patriarch of Antioch being Deposed by the Emperor Anastasius, his Successor Severus is rejected by the Orthodox only because he was a Heretic. Elias Patriarch of Jerusalem being violently deposed by the said Emperor, his Successor John is immediately acknowleged by all the People, though at the same time they hated him: by the whole Church of Palestine; particularly the two great Abbots, S. Sabas and S. Theodosius, so Famous for their Vndauntedness and Sanctity: by Johannes Cappadox Patriarch of Constantinople, and all the Greek Church: by all the whole Church ever since those Times. The Testimony of Photius Patriarch of Constantinople out of a Manuscript. The old Patriarch Elias, though so Tyrannically Deprived for adhering to the Orthodox Faith, continues however to Communicate with those who acknowleged his Successor.  
1. AFter what manner Flavianus Patriarch of Antioch, of whom we have spoken so largely in the foregoing Chapter, was Deposed, Theophanes has given us a particular Relation. 
(a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. p. 134.  He tells us (I suppose from Theodorus Lector) that there were sent to Antioch by the Emperor Anastasius to Depose him, certain 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. Great Men or Magistrates, who persuaded him to retire for some time from the City of Antioch, pretending this Reason, That thereby the Tumults which had been raised on his account might be appeased. He according to their Advice retires, and immediately they create the Heretic Severus Patriarch. Though such were the Deprivation of Flavianus, yet the only Reason assigned by the Orthodox why they would not Communicate with Severus, was his being a Notorious Heretic. Concerning the Unlawfulness of Communicating with him, because put into the place of another so unjustly and tyrannically Deprived, not a word (that I know of) in any Author. This happened in the year 513.  
2. In a short time after, viz. in the year 
(b) His Successor john governed 7 years, and 9 months, and died three years before the Emp. justin, as appears from Cyrillus Scythop. V. Sabae, c. 68 For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, p. 310. read, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 'Tis their said that Elias was Deposed in the beginning of the Indict. It was therefore in Septemb. A. 515.  515. Elias Patriarch of jerusalem was violently Deposed by the said Emperor Anastasius, for refusing to Communicate with the Heretic Severus, who was Constituted Patriarch of Antioch in the room of Flavianus. Though Elias had been thus Vncanonically Deposed, yet his Successor john, because he was Orthodox, was readily acknowledged by all. This is another of the Instances produced by the Author of the Baroccian Treatise, who affirms (what was easy to be known) that the Names both of john and Elias were written in the Sacred Diptyches of the Church of jerusalem, The said Emperor Anastasius (says our Author) Deposed and Banished the said Blessed Elias from the See of Jerusalem, because he would not come over to his Heretical Opinion, and Constituted John in his place; whom, because he publicly Preached the Orthodox Faith contrary to the Emperor's Expectation, Elias in no wise rejected, but continued in Communion with him. And Theodosius and Sabas, those Reverend Fathers, the Heads and Chief of all the Monks of the Holy City, visiting Elias in his Exile, both loved him and Communicated with him, as an injured Patriarch, and yet they Communicated with John too, (that sat then in the Throne of Jerusalem) as their Patriarch. And therefore the Names both of John and Elias were written in the Sacred Diptyches of Jerusalem, in these Words: May the Memory of Elias and john be Everlasting. These Things (i. e. all save what is said of the Diptyches) are written in the Life of the Holy and great Sabas. 'Twill be worth ones while to Read what is said in Answer to this by my extremely learned and most elegant Friend, the Writer of the 
(a) Epistola ad Humfredum Hody, etc.  Latin Epistle. Proximo loco (says he) è Vitâ sancti magnique Sabae mira profert Autor tuus, sc. Anastasium è Sede Constantinopolitanâ primo Euphemium, deinde Macedonium (quibus successit Timotheus) dejecisse, & Eliam Hierosolymorum Episcopum cum his omnibus communicasse, ipsumque Eliam etiam fuisse condemnatum & in exilium actum, cui successit Johannes, quorum nomina in Diptychis: sed haec quoad nos gratis dicta sunt; nam ubi latet illius Sancti Sabae Vita, tunobis ostend; interim an tale aliquid nunc in rerum Naturâ inveniri potest, dubitari liceat: nec benè quadrant, quae narrat Author; nam Euphemius & Macedonius, & ipse tandem Elias in longinquas & distantes Regiones in exilium missi sunt, Timotheus & johannes qui sedes occuparunt, non admodum suere vicini; & tamen hi c●●nes quam amicissimè inter se communicant: ex verbis Auctoris putares eos se mutuo visitâsse, aut utplurimum convixisse: fateor quidem posse illos in locis maximè remotis dissitos inter se communicare; sed si ad hoc probandum non obscuram Sabae vitam, sed communicatorias eorum literas protulisset, aliquid ad rem dixisset. A strange heap of Simplicity and Ignorance! He was not only ignorant before, that there's such a Life extant as that of S. Sabas, but even after I had taken care to direct the Reader where he may find it, he continues still ignorant of it, and Challenges me to produce it. What he adds of the Communicatory Letters, that our Author ought to have produced them themselves, recals to my Remembrance what he elsewhere objects against the Authority of the Treatise itself. He tells me, that the Yreatise, which I published, cannot carry with it any Authority because it was not published from the author's own Copy. Librum illum in Bibliothecâ Bodleianâ Chartaceum esse dicis, sed satis antiquum; sed cum, quam sit antiquus, non audes dicere, & Chartaceum fateris, inde suspicari licet Originalem illum non esse, sed aliunde transcriptum: & si sic fe res habet, omnis ejus Authoritas ex alio Libro, quem non habemus, dependet: eas igitur, si placet, & alia Scrinia scruteris, Baroccianum parum aut nihil causae prodest. Thus much for the Readers Diversion.  
Let us see what the Learned Vindicator has to say to this Example of the Church of jerusalem. He tells us, That Elias by his own Session, might ratify that Ordination of John, which otherwise had been invalid and unobliging: And this Session (says he) might be known by his not Challenging his Right, and by his not taking it ill at their Hands, who owned his Rival for their Patriarch, and by the Friendly Behaviour of his Rival to him in continuing his Name in the Ecclesiasticat Diptyches, if it was not afterwards restored, but then continued as our Author supposes: Otherwise this Form in the Jerusalem Diptyches, mentioned by our Author, of wishing the memory of Elias and John perpetual; like that of the Tomus Unionis in Constantinople, seems rather as if it were brought in after their Deaths, to accommodate some Differences that might have been formerly between Parties, that had been made on their Accounts. You see that the Vindicator (so learned a Man as he is) has nothing of Authority to fly to, he is forced to that poor weak Refuge of Conjecture and Guess. As for that which he says concerning the accommodating of Differences, I deny there was ever any Difference: So readily, so unanimously did all the whole Church of jerusalem submit to the new Patriarch john, that there is not any hint in Antiquity concerning any Dissension on his Account. 'Tis alleged indeed by another of our 
(a) A farther Account of the Baroccian Manuscript.  Answerers, That the People of jerusalem rejected John, because he had been the Supplanter and Betrayer of Elias: But it is not true, that john was upon that account rejected by the People of jerusalem. Cyrillus Scythopolitanus, (the Author which our Answerer alleges) says only, That when john was cast into Prison for refusing to Anathematise the Council of Chalcedon, the People rejoiced at it, because he had been an Actor against Elias. So far is he from saying, that they rejected him, that from him it plainly appears that they all very freely acknowleged him. And this to me is a very considerable Argument for the Doctrine which we maintain, That though the People had still a great Love for Elias, and hated john, because he had been one of the Expellers of Elias; yet they 
(b) This appears by the words of Cyrillus a little lower.  freely Communicated with john as their Bishop, because he was Orthodox. Had they loved john and hated Elias, their Acquiescence under the present Possessor might perhaps have proceeded from their Passions; but when the Case was quite contrary, what else could oblige 'em to submit to the present Possessor, but the Love of Peace, and Conscience? As for that which the Vindicator Conjectures concerning their presuming that Elias might have surrendered up his Right to john; Who could ever imagine that Elias did so, since john was one of his Expellers? But concerning all this matter I desire the Reader should pass his Judgement from that very particular and Authentic Account which Cyrillus Scythopolitanus has given us in the Life of S. Sabas. I shall here Translate the whole Account, and from thence it will plainly appear, That the Church of jerusalem had no regard at all to the Will and Good liking of Elias, but that what they did they did as a thing of Course, and on all Hands owned to be Lawful, whether he consented or not. 
(c) C. 56.  Elias (says Cyrillus) refusing to receive the Heretic Severus into Communion, the Emperor was extremely enraged at it, and he sent one Olympius of Caesarea, the Governor of Palestine, with express Commands to Depose him whatsoever opposition he might meet with. He comes to jerusalem with the Emperor's Forces, and by making use of many Arts and Contrivances, he expels Elias from his Bishopric, and Banishes him to Aila, and makes john the Son of Marcianus, who had promised to receive Severus into his Communion, and to Anathematise the Council of Chalcedon, Bishop of jerusalem in his 
(d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.  stead. When the Holy Sabas and the other Fathers of the Desert had understood what john had engaged to do, they 
(a) It appears by what follows that john was owned as Bishop before they could have any such Reasons as the Vindicator assigns, to believe that Elias had resigned his Right.  addressed themselves to him, & entreated him not to receive Severus into Communion, nor Anathematise the said Council, that if he would not do it they would all stand by him and assist him. By this means, john through the Reverence which he had for the Fathers, was kept from doing what he had promised the Governor. But the Emperor Anastasius, when he found that john did not do as he had promised, being mightily enraged at it, removed Olympius from his Government, and sent Anastasius the Son of Pamphilus, whom he had made Governor of Palestine, in his Room, to make john Communciate with Severus, and Anathematise the said Council; Or, if he would not do it, to thrust him out of his Bishopric. He comes to jerusalem, and unexpectedly sets upon the Archbishop, and commits him to the public Prison; which all the Inhabitants of jerusalem 
(b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  were glad of, because he had Supplanted and Betrayed the Archbishop Elias. Now there was one Zacharias, the Chief Magistrate of Caesarea, who got privately into the Prison, and advised him after this manner: That if he desired not to be deprived of his Bishopric, he should by no means be prevailed upon to receive Severus into Communion; but to the Governor he should pretend that he would; That he should pretend to the Governor, that indeed he was ready to do it, even there where he was, but least some should say that he was by Force and Compulsion brought to it, he had rather do what he Commanded, in Public, viz. the next Lord's Day. This the Archbishop did, and the Governor being persuaded by what he said, restored him to his Church. Being got out of Prison, he called together by Night an Assembly of the Monks from all Parts, who, according to some that counted 'em, amounted to the number of Ten Thousand, and because the Church would not hold so great a number of Persons, he ordered that on the Lords Day they should meet together at S. Stephen's Church, which was big enough to contain all. Being all met together, as well the 
(c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  People of the City, as the Monks, together with Anastasius the Governor, and Zacharias the Governor of Caesarea, and Hypatius the Emperor's Sister's Son, who was just then come to jerusalem to offer up his Prayers, and pay his Vows there for his Deliverance from the Captivity of Vitalianus; when the Governor expected that the Emperors Will should be fulfilled, the Archbishop went up into the Pulpit, together with Theodosius and Sabas, the two Chief Governors of the Monks; and 
(d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.  all the People for many hours together, cried out, Anathematise the Heretics, Confirm the Council. So they all 3 with one Voice Anathematised Nestorius, and Eutyches, and Severus, and Soterichus, and all others that did not receive the Council of Chalcedon. When they had thus done, and were come down from the Pulpit, the Abbot Theodosius turning to the People, if any one (says he) does not receive the four Councils as the four Gospels, let him be Anathema. These things being done, the Governor being afraid of so great a number of Monks, fled away to Caesarea.— When the Emperor Anastasius had heard what was done, he prepared to drive by force into banishment the Archbishop john, and Theodosius and Sabas, who went up into the Pulpit together with him. And his design being known at jerusalem, Theodosius and Sabas the Governors of the Monks, those Champions of Piety, those Defenders and Supporters of the Orthodox Faith, called together all the Monks of the Desert, and in the name of all together wrote a supplicatory Letter to the Emperor.  
The Letter which they Wrote is recorded by Cyrillus: It runs thus, To the most Religious and Pious Emperor, etc. the request and supplication of Theodosius and Sabas Abbots; together with the other Governors of Monasteries, and all the Monks that are in Jerusalem, the Desert round about it, and that inhabit on Jordan, etc. They profess in that Epistle, that they had all rather see their City jerusalem burnt and destroyed, and besides that had all rather lose their Lives, than accept of an Eutychian Patriarch; and they humbly beseech the Emperor, not to depose 
(b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  their most Holy Archbishop John. Though in the beginning of the Epistle there is mention only of the Monks, yet all the Inhabitants of Palestine are supposed to be included, as may be gathered from these words in the Epistle: 
(c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  All we the Inhabitants of this Holy Land. When the Emperor received it, he was engaged in the War with Vitalianus, and on that account, he desisted from his purpose of deposing the Patriarch john. Thus, john (says Cyrillus) escaped being deposed from the Throne of Jerusalem.  
For 
(d) Ibid. c. 68  seven Years and nine Months, i. e. as long as he lived, he continued Bishop of jerusalem, acknowleged unanimously by all, and that too, though for 
(e) Elias died on july Indict. 11. (as appears c. 60.) i. e. Anno Dom. 518. Nicephorus Patr. in Chron. assigns him 11 years.  three years of that time, Elias the old Bishop was still living. If victor Tununensis may be believed, john continued Bishop of jerusalem no less than nineteen years, for he says that he died, and that Peter succeeded him, in the consulship of Belisarius, which falls in with the eighth and ninth year of the Emperor justinian; but that is a very great mistake, no less than that other of his concerning John's Anathematising the Council of Chalcedon, and receiving Severus into Communion, which, he says, he did when first he was made Bishop. As Victor being an African knew nothing exactly of what was done amongst the Greeks, so 'twas natural for him to suppose that john actually did so, since he was put into the place of another deposed for refusing to do it.  
Whether since the beginning of Christianity, there was ever a Church more flourishing and zealous for the Orthodox Faith, than that of jerusalem was at this time, may very well be doubted: And how can we imagine, that so Stout and so Orthodox a Church, as that of jerusalem than was, would have ever submitted to the Successor of Elias, if it had not been their Opinion that they might lawfully do it? They that could oppose the Emperor so bravely and courageously as they did, they that declare boldly to him, that they had all rather lose their lives than submit to an Eutychian Bishop, are so far from rejecting their Patriarch john, because put into the place of another unjustly deposed, that they take no notice at all of it; are so far from deposing him themselves for being so constituted, that they supplicate the Emperor not to depose him. After so great a demonstration of their Stoutness, and their Zeal for the Orthodox Faith, as the foregoing Relation affords, 'twould be needless to remind the Reader, that likewise before that time, when Elias was their Patriarch, they pronounced an Anathema upon even the Emperor himself; 'twould be needless to tell him of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which Theophanes the Chronographer speaks of, who a little before this time 
(a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. p. 130.  being excited (as he says) by a divine Real, came from Palestine to Constantinople, to oppose in disputation the Heretic Severus. It is needless likewise to heap up together those many glorious Epithets which are bestowed by the Ancients on the two great Abbots, St. Sabas and St. Theodosius. 'Tis needless to remind the Reader of those Praises that are given them by Cyrillus in the place above quoted, 
(b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Theodosius and Sabas, those Champions of Piety, those Defenders and Supporters of Orthodoxy. 'Twere needless to tell him, that they are called by Isaac Catholicus 
(c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Invect. 1. in Armenios' p. 390.  Theodosius and Sabas the most holy; and by the Author of the Synodicon, 
(d) Sin 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Theodosius and Sabas the Supporters of the Orthodox, and the fixed Stars of the Faith, by which the Monks of the Desert and their Governors were enlightened.  
I shall not mention, that S. Sabas is called by simeon Archbishop of Thessalonica, in his 
(e) M. S. Baroc. 91. Biblioth Oxon. Responso ad Quest. de antiquitate Jejuniorum 40 malis, SS. Apostolorum & S. deiparae. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  questions not yet published, the most divine Sabas, and a Father and Doctor of the Church. I pass by likewise those several places of his life, where he is called 
(f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, p. 310.  the Sanctified, the 
(g) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, c. 37.  illuminated Sabas, that 
(h) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, c. 63.  Angel on Earth, that heavenly Man Sabas, the Patron of Orthodoxy, the Opposer of false Doctrine, etc. as likewise another place where he and Theodosius are both together styled 
(a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. Erat autem Pater noster Sabas moderato animi sensu, moribus lenibus & simplicissimit, plenusque omni spirituali prudentiâ & discretione: caritatem vero non sictam, sed maximè sinceram erga memoratum beatum Abbatem Theodosium servabat; qui consimilem pariter sinceritatem erga Patrem nostrum retinebat; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Il duo Monachorum caetum omnem ad regnum coelorum dirigebant. Siquidem beatus Theodosius praeses, dux, & Archimandrita erat totius sanctae civitati subjecti Coenobiaci canonis, sanctificatus ver● Sabas princeps sait & legislator totius Anachoreticae vitae, omniumque qui in cellis degere selegerant, c. 65.  true Sons of Light and Sons of Day, Men of God, faithful Servants, the Pillars and Supporters of Truth, men of excellent desires. These are very extraordinary Encomiums, and from them it is apparent how great and extraordinary Persons both for Piety and Orthodoxy Theodosius and Sabas were. I shall not mention how great a Veneration and Honour the greatest Persons of S. Sabas' own Age were wont to pay him; how the 
(b) Vita ejus c. 75.  Archbishop and all the People went out to meet him when he came to Caesarea; how the Emperor 
(c) C. 70, 71.  justinian, when he came to Constantinople sent his own Yachts to receive him; how the Patriarch of Constantinople together with other great Bishops went out with the Yachts to meet him; how when he came into the Presence, the Emperor ran to salute him; how he kissed his head, shed tears for joy to see him, and received his Blessing. So great an Honour was paid our Sabas, though as to his outward appearance he was nothing else but a poor 
(d) Vide c. 51.  ragged old Man. I pass by all these things: But this the Reader is desired to take notice of and remember, That by both the Churches, as well the 
(e) The day dedicated to S. Theodosius is the 11 th'. of jan. that dedicated to Sabas is the 5 th'. of Decemb. Martyrolog. Rom. S. Sabae abbatis, qui in Palaestinâ miro sanctitatis exemplo refulsit, etc. S. Theodosii Coenobiarchae qui multa pro fide Catholicâ passus, in pu●● tandem quievit.  Western as the Eastern, Theodosius and Sabas are both honoured with the Title of Saints. They are not only Worshipped as Saints, but in the Liturgies, the Menology, and the Anthology, of the Greek Church, they have, as two of the Sancti majorum gentium, their proper and peculiar Offices. Let us hear a little those Eulogiums and Praises which they give them; (not private Authors, but the whole Greek Church in her sacred Offices) 
(f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.  most blessed Sabas, (says the Church in her addresses to that Saint;) The unextinguished Lamp of Continence, the most refulgent Luminary of those that live a monastic life, enlightened with love, the unshaken Tower of Perseverance;— Holy Sabas, the fiery Pillar of Virtues, the light that guides those that sail on the Sea of the World to the Shoar of Heaven, thou that opposest the Spirits of Error, the pure Vessel of the Holy Ghost, the conductor of Monastic Persons, the exact measure of Temperance, the most illustrious Example of Humility, the perfect Rule of Virtue. Much more of the like Nature the pours out in the Praises of that Saint; and much of the same Nature she offers up to S. Theodosius. 
(*) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.  Holy Father, Divine Theodosius, says she in a Prayer to him composed by Theophanes. See likewise that 
(†) Ap. Antho●gium. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.  Hymn, which she Sings in Praise of him, composed by johanne, Dam●s●enas. Thus much I thought sit to say concerning those two great Men, that the World may see what Examples those are which we follow.  
〈◊〉 it was not only the Church of Palestine, S. Sabas, and S. Theodosius, etc. that acknowledged john as true Patriarch of jerusalem: It appears from an Epistle of johannes Cappadoae Patriarch of Constantinople, and the Synod of Constantinople, that was called under him in the beginning of the Emperor justin, viz. on the year 5'8. that the whole Greek Church acknowleged him. (The Latin Church at that time was broken off from the Communion of the Greek Church on the Account of Acacius formerly Patriarch of Constantinople) That Epistle is extant in the Acts of the Council 
(a) Act. V. p. 186. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.  sub Mennâ, and is directed to our john Archbishop of Jerusalem, and to the Metropolitans under him. It begins thus; Christ our God, who has given from Heaven the Bond of Charity in Peace, to Men that are of one Soul and of one Faith, has Commanded that what is done by some should be Communicated to all, etc. 
(b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  I have (therefore) thought it necessary to signify (these things) to your Holiness, that by the assistance of the Holy Ghost, you, by knowing what has been done, may be confirmed in the Word of Truth. The business of the Epistle is to let him, and his Bishops know, that severn's the Heretical Patriarch of Antioch had been Anathematised at Constantinople, etc. and about the same matter there is another Epistle sent from the same Synod of Constantinople to Epiphanius Archbishop of Tyre. There is extant in the same Acts of the Council sub Mennâ, an Epistle of our John Archbishop of Jerusalem, and the Synod of the three Palaestines, (to which, besides the Archbishop himself, there are the Subscriptions of 34 Bishops) to the Patriarch of Constantinople in answer to that abovementioned.  

(c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  To my Lord and Fellow-Communicant, the most Pious and Holy John, and to the Holy Synod of Constantinople, John by the Mercy of God Bishop of Jerusalem, and the Holy Synod of the Three Palaestines, now sitting in the Holy Places of Christ the God of all Things, Health in the Lord. Neither can it be alleged, That therefore the Patriarch and the Church of Constantinople acknowleged our john of jerusalem, because at that time the old Bishop Elias was Dead. For Elias Died in Banishment at a great distance from Constantinople, the 
(d) Cyril, V. Sabae, c.  20th. of july, A. D. 518, ten days after the Emperor Anastasius and the Synod of Constantinople completed that about which they write to john of jerusalem four days before, viz. on the 
(a) Vide Acta Concilii sub Mennà Act. V. p. 181.  16th of the same Month. And besides it is plain from the Words of the Epistle of the Patriarch of Constantinople to our john of jerusalem, that before that time they owned the latter as true Bishop of jerusalem.  
As our Archbishop john was in his life time acknowleged by all the Church, so he has been all along in the following Ages. First, Cyrillus Scythopolitanus, who wrote his History of the Life of S. Sabas, about Thirty three years after 
(b) The Archbishop's.  his Death, speaks every where of him as of one of the true Bishops of jerusalem, and in one place he says, that he was 
(c) C. 35. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  adorned with a Divine Prudence or Understanding. Secondly, In the Constantinopolitan Council sub Mennâ, (which was celebrated in the year 536. where the Pope of Rome was concerned as well as the Greek Church) his Epistle to the Patriarch of Constantinople, and the Patriarch's Epistle to him, are recited in the same manner as the Epistles of other Orthodox Bishops are wont to be in the Councils; and in the Acts of that Council he is Styled more than once john Archbishop of jerusalem 
(d) Act. V. p. 157. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rurfus p. 186. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  of Holy Memory. Thirdly, the Author of the Synodicon speaking of that Synod of Monks which wrote that Epistle to the Emperor Anastasius, in which the Eutychian Heresy is Anathematised, and the Emperor desired not to Depose their most Holy Archbishop john, gives it the Title of a 
(e) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Syn. III.  Divine and Holy Synod. Which shows, that he very well approved of the Proceeding of those Monks as to their Acquiescence under john their Archbishop. Fourthly, It is certain that the Names both of john and Elias were continued all along in the Sacred Diptyches of the Church of jerusalem. This is expressly asserted not only by the Author of the Baroccian Treatise in the Words above Cited, but likewise by Photius the Patriarch of Constantinople, in a 
(f) Entitled, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. MS. Baroc. 91. Biblioth. Oxon.  Treatise of his not yet published. His Words are express to our Purpose. They are these, 
(g) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Elias Bishop of Jerusalem being Banished from his Church by the Eutychians, they made John Bishop in his stead; who had promised to Communicate with Severus, 
In Manuscritto 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  and to Anathematise the Fourth Council. But he doing the contrary by the persuasion of S. Sabas and S. Theodosius, was so far from being either punished or reprehended, that to this very day he is Commemorated as a Saint, together with Elias. Neither did they who Communicated with him, suffer any thing in their Reputation for doing so.  
I shall conclude this Chapter with an Observation concerning the good old Archbishop Elias. He, though so Tyrannically deposed, though deposed for adhering to the Orthodox Faith, yet continued still to communicate with those who acknowleged his Successor john. This is plain from the Testimony of Cyrillus Scythopolitanus, who 
(a) V. S. Sabae c. 60.  tells us, That (near three years after he was banished) a little before he fell sick and died, S. Sabas and Euthalius, the Governor of those Monasteries which he had built at jericho when he was Archbishop, and another Abbot went to Aila, where he lay confined in banishment, to give him a visit: Though S. Sabas and the rest, had immediately acknowleged his Successor as soon as he was deposed, though they still adhered to that Successor as the true Archbishop of jerusalem, and though Euthalius had been in a particular manner obliged to Elias by being constituted by him, the Governor of his own Monasteries; yet the good old man takes no notice at all of it, but as Cyrillus says, 
(b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.  received them with joy, kept them several days with him, and communicated daily with them.   

CHAP. VIII.  
S. Silverius Bishop of Rome being violently deposed by Belisarius the Emperor Justinian's General, his Successor Vigilius, though put into his place so deprived, though constituted by the bare Authority of Belisarius against the consent of the Clergy, and though Silverius never gave up his Right, is owned and received by the 5th. General Council, and by all the Church, as a true Pope. He was generally owned whilst Silverius himself was living. Baronius' conjecture concerning his being again ordained after Silverius' Death confuted, though for some time he communicated with Heretics, yet it was not known to the Orthodox who communicated with him.  
IN the year 538, Silverius Pope of Rome was deposed by Belisarius, the Emperor Iustinian's General, then in Italy, being accused of a design to betray the City of Rome to the Goths, and Vigilius was made Pope in his stead. There being a suspicion (says 
(c) L. 1. de bell. Goth. c. 25. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Procopius Caesariensis) that Silverius the Bishop of the City intended to deliver up the City to the Goths, Belisarius sent him away immediately into Greece, and a little after made another Bishop in his stead, by name Vigilius. To the same purpose the 
(b) Viriges Tyrannus exercitu aggregato Romam obsidet cui tunc faventem Papam Silverium Belisariut ab Episcopata submovit, & loco ejus Vigilium diaconum ordinavit.  Continuator of Marcellinus Comes ' s Chronicle, and Paulus 
(c) Hist. l. 16. Statimque ei (Belisario) à Theodora Augusta praeceptio allata est, ut Papam Silverium convictum accusatione falsorum testium in exilium truderet, ea quod Anthinum hereticum Constantin●politanum recuperatione recipere noluisset. Quod Belisarius licet nolens nihil moratus effecit. Pulsas denique est Papa Silverius ad Pontiam insulam in qui & exulans obiit.  Diaconus, lest any one should suspect that, though he is said to be deposed by Belisarius, yet it was not barely by his Authority, but by a Synod of Bishops: I shall here present the Reader with that particular Account of the whole Proceeding, which we find in 
(d) Breviarii c. 22. Romana Civitas (Agapeto Papa Constantinopoli desuncto) Silverium elegit ordinandum. Augusta vero vocans Vigilium Agapeti diaconum, profiteri sibi secreto ab eo slagitavit, ut si Papa fieret, tolleret synodum (Chalced.) & scriberet (communicaret cum) Theodosio, Anthimo, & Severo, & per Epistolam suam eorum firmaret fidem; promittens dare ei praeceptum ad Belisarium, ut Papa ordinaretur, & dari centenaria septem. Lubenter ergo suscepit Vigilius promissam ejus amore principatus & auri. Et factâ professione Romam profectus est; ubi veniens invenit Silverium Papam ordinatum. Belisario (tunc in Italià existenti) tradens praeceptum Augustae promisit ci duo auri centenaria, si, Silverio remoto, ordinaretur ipse pro eo. Belisarius vero Romam reversus, evocans Silverium ad palatium, intentabat ei calumniam, quasi Gothis scripsisset ut Romam introirent. Fertur autem Marcum quendam Scholasticum, & julianum quenda● praetorianum fictas de nomine Silverit composu●sse literas Regi Gothorum scriptas, ex quibus convinceretur Silverius Romanam velle perdere civitatem. Secreto autem Belisarius & ejus conjuae persuadebant Silverio implere praeceptum Augustae, ut tolleretur Chalcedonensis Synodus, & per Epistolam suam Haereticorum firmaret fidem.— Ad quem rursus mandavit Belisarius ut ad Palatium veniret. Qui de Ecclesiâ exire nolebat dolos sibi praeparatos agnoscens. Sed postea orans, & causam suam domino commendans, exiit, & ad Palatium venit. Qui solus ingressus, à suis ulterius non est visus. Et aliâ die Belisarius convocatis Presbyteris & Diaconis & Clericis omnibus, mandavit eis ut alium sibi Papam eligerent. Quibus dubitantibus, & nonnullis ridentibus, savore Belisaris ordinatus est Vigilius. Silverius autem in exilium missus est, in civitatem provinciae Lyciae, quae Patara dicitur.— Silverio veniente Pataram, venerabilis Episcopus civitatis ipsius venit ad imperatorem, & judicium dei contestatus est de tantae sedis Episcopi expulsione, multos esse dicens in hoc mundo Reges, & non esse unum, sicut ille Papa est super Ecclesiam mundi totius, à suâ sede expulsus. Quem audiens imperator, revocari Romam Silverium jussit, & de literis illis judicium fieri, ut si probaretur ab ipso fuisse scriptas, in quacunque civitate Episcopus degeret; si autem falsae fuissent probatae, restitueretur sedi suae. Pelagius verò current cum voluntate Augustae, volebat ●rritum facere imperatoris praeceptum, ne Silverius Romam reverteretur, sed praevalente imperatoris jussione, Silverius ad Italiam reductus est. Cujus adventu territus Vigilius, ne sede pelleretur, Belisario mandavit: Trade mihi Silverium, alioqui non possum facere quod à me exigis. Ita Silverius traditus est duobus Vigilii defensoribus & servis ejus, qui in Palmariam insulam adductus, sub eorum custodiâ defecit inediâ.  Liberatus Diaconus, who flourished at that time. He tells us, That Pope Agapetus being dead, and Silverius being chosen by the City of Rome in his stead, the Empress persuaded Vigilius, Agapetus' Deacon, who was at that time at Constantinople, to enter into a secret Engagement, That if he should be made Pope, he would condemn the Council of Chalcedon, and communicate with (the Heretics) Theodosius, Anthimus, and Severus, and confirm their belief by an Epistle. He having engaged himself to do so, she writes a Letter by him to Belisarius, requiring him to depose Silverius and to make Vigilius Bishop in his room. Belisarius to fulfil the Empress' Will, and for the lucre of a sum of Money which Vigilius had offered him, gets Silverius to be accused as having written to the Goths and engaged to deliver up the City into their hands. And 'tis reported (says Liberatus) that one Marcus, and one julianus forged Letters in his name to that purpose. Now Belisarius and his Wife had privately persuaded Silverius to do the same thing which the Empress had engaged Vigilius to do, but he refused, and betakes himself to a Church. Belisarius sends a messenger to him to invite him again to the Palace; he accordingly goes relying upon an Oath which was made him that he should have leave to return. He returns again to the Church, and again is commanded by Belisarius to come to the Palace; but he would not go out of the Church, well knowing that some evil was designed him. At last he yielded to go, and commending himself and his cause to God by Prayer, he went thither: He entered in alone, and was afterwards never seen by those that attended him. Another day Belisarius called together the Presbyters, and the Deacons, and all the rest of the Clergy, and commanded them to choose another Pope. Which when they scrupled to do, and some laughed at the command, Vigilius was by his order ordained Pope. Now Silverius being banished to Patara a City of Lycia, the Bishop of that City addressed himself to the Emperor, and reasoned with him concerning the Expulsion of Silverius, telling him that there were many Kings in the World, but but one Pope, the Head of the Church of the whole World. (This the Popes at that time had pretended to be, and their Flatterers humoured them in it.) By this the Emperor was induced to recall Silverius, and gave order that those Letters which were produced against him should be enquired into, That if it could be proved that he wrote them, he should be banished to any City they should think fit; but if they appeared to be false, he should be restored to his See. This news being carried to the Empress, she endeavoured to prevent Silverius' return to Rome; but she could not prevail, and Silverius was brought back to Italy by the Emperor's command. Now Vigilius being terrified at his coming, lest he should lose his See, required Belisarius, to deliver him up into his hands, telling him, that if he did not do so, he should not be able to pay him that fumm of Money which he had promised him. S● Belisarius gave him up into the hands of Vigilius' Servants, who carried him into the Isle Palmaria, where in their custody he died of want.  
This is the account which Liberatus has given us, and the same account, as to the main we have in the Pontifical. It appears from hence, That Silverius was not only deposed without any Synod, but likewise by an inferior Person, not by the order of the Sovereign Power; that (besides that) he was deposed very unjustly and tyrannically without any formal Trial; and lastly, that Vigilius was made Pope without any Election, expressly against the consent of the Clergy of Rome, by the bare Arbitrary Power of Belisarius.  
Though such were the Circumstances of Silverius' deprivation, though after his deprivation he never gave up his right, and though Vigilius was (besides that) so uncanonically constituted, yet because he appeared to be Orthodox, he was owned and acknowleged by all; by the People of Rome even though they very much hated him for his Cruelty to his Predecessor and for other ill Actions, and by all the Catholic Church, particularly by the 5 th'. General Council. He governed as long as he lived, near 18 years, and to this day is reckoned by all as one of the true Popes of Rome. I need not produce the Autorities of any of the Ancients to prove that he was generally acknowleged, it being a truth so notorious. But there are four things which I must not omit taking notice of.  
1. That there is extant in Isidorus Mercator an Epistle of Silverius, supposed to be then in banishment, to Vigilius, in 
(a) Novumque scelus erroris in Apostolicâ sede rursus niteris inducere; & in morem Simonis cujus discipulum te ostendis operibus, datâ pecuniâ, méque repulso qui (favente domino) tribus jam jugiter emensis temporibas et praesideo, tempora mea nitaris invadere. Habeto ergo, cum his qui tibi censentiunt, poenae damnationis sententiam; sublatumque tibi nomen & munus Ministerii sacerdotalis agnosce, spiritus judicio, & Apostolicâ à nobis autoritate damnatus. Sic enim decet sidem sanctorum Patrum in Ecclesiâ servari Catholicâ, ut quod habuit amittat qui improbabili temeritate quod non accepit assumpserit. Dat. 80 Kal. Principe Basilio. Caelius Silverius Papa urbis Romae huic decreto Anathematis in Vigilio pervasore facto ad omnia statuta consensum praebens subscripsi. Pariter & 4 Episcopi subscripserunt, id est, Terracinensis, Fundanus, Firmanus, & Minturnensis.  which he excommunicates him and degrades him from the Ministry for invading his See by Simony; and he likewise excommunicates all those that adhere to him. And to this Epistle and Sentence, four other Bishops of Campania subscribe. A second Epistle, is from one Amator a Bishop, to Silverius, in which he condoles with him for the injuries which he had suffered, and desires to know the circumstances of his Ejectment; and a third there is from Silverius to Amator in Answer to his. In this he tells Amator, That Belisarius trapan'd him into the Palace, and so detained him and sent him into Banishment; 
(b) Me vero vi retento, & ante praedictam Patriciam deducto, miserunt; in quo modo sustentor pane tribulationis & aquâ angustiae. Ego tam●n propterea non dimisi nec dimitto officium meum: sed cum Episcopis quos congregare potui, eos qui talia erga me egerunt anathematizavi.  But (says he) I do not therefore resign up my right to my See, but together with such Bishops as I could gather together, I have excommunicated those who did so to me. To these Epistles I answer, That they are all fictitious and forged by that idle and ignorant Impostor Mercator. This appears from the Barbarousness of the Style in which they are writ, from the falseness of the Stories contained in 'em, and from their Date. For whereas the 1st. is pretended to be dated in the Consulship of Basilius, and the last in the 5th. Consulship of Justinian when he was Consul together with Belisarius. It is very certain, First, That Basilius was not Consul till two or three years after Silverius was deposed. Secondly, That Belisarius was never Consul after the year 535, which was two or three years before Silverius' Expulsion. Thirdly, That justinian was never a 5 th', time Consul. Fourthly, That justinian and Belisarius were never Consuls together. So ignorant an Impostor was that idle Fellow the Forger of those Epistles; for further satisfaction the Reader is desired to consult Blondel his Pseudo Isidorus. I shall only add that all those three Epistles are now rejected as Spurious by even the Papists themselves, as particularly by the Jesuit 
(a) Ad Ep. 1. Suspect ● sulei epistolam cum alia probant, tum styli barbaries.— Surrepsisse videtur adjecta nota Consularis, quia tempore Silveri● neque Belisarius neque Basilius ullum Consulatum egerunt, in quit ad ●●am Binius: verum mihi potius hec a●●uere videntur Impos●oris audacem inscitiam, qui Basilium anno 541. Consulem celebe●●inum dusbus minimum annis prae●e●te●it. ●● de h●see Mercatoris aberrationibus Chronologicis jam saepius conquelli sumus. Ad Ep. 2. Hanc quoque suspectae sidei censent viri docti, nec imitate, cum jisdem atque se ●ens vitrij; labourer. 
The last is condemned by even Baronius and Binius themselves. Baronius says 'twas written ab aliquo otioso; and 'tis strange he should not likewise reject the other. 'Tis manifest that the second was forged only as an occasion to write the last.   Labbée in his Edition of the Councils. It does not therefore appear that there was ever any the least Schism on the account of Silverius, though the Cricumstances of his Ejectment and of Vigilius' Promotion were so extraordinary. Such indeed were the circumstances both of the Ejectment of the former, and likewise of the promotion of the latter, so very extraordinary and provoking, that it is to be admired that there was none; and the Forger of those Epistles above mentioned, had reason enough from the heinousness of the circumstances (tho' not from Tradition or History) to believe there might have been some Schism, and accordingly to make Silverius and four other Bishops excommunicate Vigilius and his Adherents. I here observe, by the buy, that he that forged those Epistle, does not make Silverius complain of his being deposed without a Synod, he does not make him excommunicate his deposers and Vigilius and his Adherents, for that; for he takes no notice at all of it: but he makes him excommunicate his Deposers because they deposed him by Fraud and Treachery; and he makes him excommunicate Vigilius and his Adherents, because he had usurped his See by Simony.  
2. Baronius, and out of him Binius (who is every where the Transcriber of Baronius) are willing to persuade the World, that after the death of Silverius, Vigilius resigned the Popedom that so he might be new Chosen, and that being new Chosen he was made a true Pope by virtue of his last Consecration, not by virtue of his first. A strange and prodigious Fancy! Let us see what ground they have for it. Their only Argument is this, That in the Pontifical it is said, that after the death of Silverius there was a five days vacancy in the See. Now, say they, since Vigilius was made Pope before Silverius' death, how there should be a Five days Vacancy after Silverius ' s death, unless it was because Vigilius resigned upon his death and was again chosen Pope after a Five days Vacancy, we cannot imagine. To this I answer, 1. That had there been such a Resignation, it must have been looked upon as so extraordinary a thing, as that some one or other would have mentioned it: But Liberatus Diaconus who lived at that time, and gives a particular account of the Deprivation and death of Silverius, and of the Promotion of Vigilius, makes no mention of any such thing. So far is he from doing so, that the contrary may easily be gathered from what he says. Having told his Reader, that Vigilius to make good his Promise to the Empress, had sent his Communicatory Letters to the Heretics Theodosius, Anthimus and Severus, and confirmed their Belief; he subjoins, Et haec Vigilius scribens Haereticis occultè, permansit sedens. And so he was continued in his See. 2. It does not appear that the Author of the Pontifical meant, that there was a Vacancy in the See of Five days after the death of Silverius: He might only mean that there was a Vacancy of Five days between the Deprivation of Silverius and the Promotion of Vigilius. 3. It is certain that the Author of the Pontifical writes very fabulously concerning Silverius and Vigilius, and plainly discovers, that he knew very little of the matter. As for his cessavit Episcopatus dies 5. he had so much used his Pen to, cessavit Episcopatus, at the end of every Life, that that comes in always of Course, even then when ('tis certain) there never was any Vacancy. Witness the cessavit episcopatus dies 7. between the death of Liberius and Felix II. and the cessavit episcopatus diebus 39 between the same Felix and Damasus. Than which there can be nothing more false: For Damasus did not succeed Felix but Liberius; and Felix being put into Liberius' place, was again turned out upon Liberius' Restauration, without any manner of Vacancy. So, rather than a cessavit episcopatus should be wanting, he adds in the Life of S. Fabian. Et cessavit Episcopatus dies septem: when we very well know, that between the Martyrdom of S. Fabian and the Consecration of his Successor S. Cornelius there was a Vacancy of no less than a Year, Four Months and Four Days. Our Author knew nothing of the Business; but a cessavit Episcopatus he would not be without.  
3. That Vigilius was owned and acknowleged as a true Pope, not only after the death of Silverius, but likewise before, appears 1. from hence, That there is no mention in any credible Author of his being by any rejected on the Account of Silverius; so far was he from being generally rejected. 2. From an Epistle of Eutherius a Bishop (as it seems of Spain) to him, wherein he desires his Opinion in some Points relating to the Church. That there was such an Epistle written to him by Eutherius, appears from Vigilius' 
(a) Dileclissimo Fratri Eutherio Vigilius. Directas ad nos tuae caritatis Epistolas, plenas Catholicae inquisitionis solicitudme, gratanter accepimus, benedicentes dei nostri clementiam, quia tales in extremis mundi partibus dignatur suis ovibas providere pastors, per quos & pascuis valcant salutaribus abundare, & ab antiqui hostis rapacitate servari, ut insidias nequeant ejus sa●reptionis incurrere: unde certum est, quia promissae vos be atitudinis ●●atia subseqa●tur, quan●● à vobis coelestium perfectia doctrinarum tam votiva sciscitatione ●erquiritu●; scriptum est enim, Ecati qui scrutantur testimonia ejus: in toto corde exquirunt cum. Hoc igitar, frater carissime, propositum tuae consultationis totâ ment tractantos, de te quoque provenire contendimus, qui regulam Catholicae fid●i iisdem s●udes tenere vestigiis, quibus e●m in Apostoticâ fide cognoscis esse fundatam, etc.  Epistle in Answer to it: and that it was written in a very little time after Vigilius was made Pope is apparent from the date of Vigilius' Answer; for that is dated the 
(b) Data Kal. Martii Volasiano & Ioann● Viris clariss. ●oss.  1st. of March in the Consulship of Volusianus and joannes, i. e. anno 538.3. From an Epistle of the Church of Austrasia to him, written by their King Theodebert, and sent by an Ambassador to him, to know his Judgement, what Penance ought to be inflicted on one who had Married his Brother's Wife. That there was such an Epistle written to him by K. Theodebert, is plain from an 
(c) Si pro observatione mandatorum Catholicae filios Ecclesiae opportunè ● el importanè sacerdotes singulos decet instruere, quanto magis his, qui d●votioni laudabili de rebus sibi dubiis ad studium veniunt consulendi, competenti necesse e●● ordine res●●nderi? Hi●e est quod gloriosi silii nostri Regis Theodeberti interrogationem, quà nos per Modericum, virum illustrem, legatum suum credidit requirendos, duximus amplecten●am: in quâ gloriam suam desiderat informari, cujusmodi poenitentiâ possit illius purgari delictum, qui cum uxore fratris sui illicitum praesumpsit inire conjugium. Cui nos equidem missis affatibus, quorum tenorem tua fraternitas in subjectis inveniet, hoc indicare curavimus, etc.  Epistle which he wrote to Caesarius Archbishop of Arles. And that that Epistle was sent him just after he was promoted to the Popedom, is apparent from the date of his Epistle to Caesarius: for that is dated on the 
(a) Datum pridie Nonarum Martiarum joanne V. C. Consul.  6 th'. of March 538. I take no notice of what is said by the Cardinal Baronius and the Editors of the Councils, that the two aforesaid Epistles of Eutherius and K. Theodebert were written not to Vigilius but Silverius, and that being brought to Rome after the Expulsion of Silverius, Vigilius took upon him to answer 'em. That is only an Evasion: and 'tis plain from Vigilius' Words, that those Epistles were written, not to Silverius, but directly to him. And certain it is moreover, that Vigilius writes, both in his Epistle to Eutherius, and likewise in that to the Archbishop of Arles, as a Pope universally acknowleged.  
4. It may possibly be alleged, That Vigilius when he was made Pope, sent his Communicatory Letters to the Heretics, Theodosius, Anthimus, and Severus, and confirmed their Heretical Doctrines; that therefore they who communicated with him, and owned him as true Bishop of Rome, were men of no Principles, since they owned a Heretic to be a true Pope. To this I answer, That all that was done by Vigilius in reference to the Heretics, was done secretly, and was not known to the Orthodox who communicated with him till after he had utterly forsaken the Heretics. This appears 1st from the Testimony of Liberatus Diaconus, who speaking of the engagement between Vigilius and the Empress, says that it was a secret; that she secretly persuaded him to promise to communicate with those Heretics: and speaking afterwards of his Communicatory Letters to the Heretics, and of his subscribing to their Heresy, he adds, that this he did occulté. 2. From the Communicatory Letter itself which Vigilius wrote to the Heretics, and to which he added his Subscription to their Doctrine. For in that, as it is extant in Liberatus and Victor Tununensis, he expressly charges 'em 
(b) Oportet ergo, ut hec que vobis scribo, nullus cognoscat: sed magis tanquam suspectum hic me sapientia vestra ante alios existimet habere, ut facilius possim hec quae coepi operari & perficere.  not to let any one know that he had written to 'em; and pretends this Reason, because by keeping it secret, he should be the better able to advance their Cause. So far indeed was Vigilius from being publicly known to be a Communicator with Heretics and a Subscriber to their Heresy, that the Author of the Pontifical tells us, That he absolutely 
(c) Ad haec rescripsit Vigilius: Absit hoc à me, Domina Augusta. Prius locutus sum malè & insipienter, modo autem nullo modo tibi consentio, ut revocem hominem Haereticum & anathematizatum. Et fi indignus Vicarius sum B. Petri Apostoli, quomodo fuerunt antecessores mei sanctissimi Agapetus & Silverius qui cum damnaverunt.  refused to do as he had promised the Empress, and was therefore persecuted by her.   

CHAP. IX.  
Macarius, Patriarch of Jerusalem, being deposed by the Emperor Justinian, his Successor Eustochius is owned as a true Patriarch by the Fifth General Council and the whole Catholic Church. After some time Eustochius himself is deposed by the Emperor and Macarius, being restored, is received by the Church. According to our Adversaries Principles, either Eustochius, or Macarius, after his Restauration, was no true Patriarch: yet the Church received both.  
ABout the end of the Year 
(a) Not on the Year 545, as some say; nor 546, as Baronius states it. It appears from Cyrillus Scythop. Vitâ S. Sabae, p. 371, 373. That Peter died, and Macarius was constituted, not before about the end of the sixteenth Year after S Sabas' death: Now S. Sabas died the fifth of Decemb. Indict. to the sixth Year of justinian, as appears p. 353, 354; And therefore the end of the sixteenth Year after S. Sabas' death, was in the latter part of Iustinian's 22d. Year, which began the First of April. And with this agrees what he says, pag. 369, 371. That the Abbot Gelasius died Octob. Ind. 9 That after him, besides the Intervals, George was Abbot seven Months; after him Cassianus ten Months; then Conon, in whose time Peter the Patriarch died, and Macarius was promoted. From hence it appears that Peter was Patriarch about 25 Years; not 20 only, as Theophanes and Nicephorus Patriarch tell us; for he began three Years before the Beginning of Iustinian's Reign, as appears p. 336, 337.  548, the 22d. of the Reign of justinian, Macarius was constituted Patriarch of jerusalem in the room of Peter deceased. After two years' time he was deposed by the Emperor; partly, because he had been promoted without his Consent; and partly, because he was suspected to be a favourer of the Origenian Heretics; and great Riots were raised at jerusalem on his account. He being deposed, Eustochius was preferred in his stead. After Peter (says 
(b) Hist. Eccles. l. 17. c. 26. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Nicephorus Callisti) Macarius was ordained Patriarch of Jerusalem without the Emperor's Consent: and was therefore deposed. For he was said to be a great promoter of the Doctrines of Origen. He being expelled, Eustochius was advanced to the holy Chair. As Nicephorus intimates in these words, That he was deposed by the Emperor: So in 
(c) C. 29.  another place he says so expressly. And 
(d) L. 4. c. 37. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Evagrius intimates the same thing. And that there was no Synod, no formal Trial, may be gathered from hence, That Evagrius, and after him Nicephorus Callisti say only, that it was reported that he was a favourer of the Origenian Doctrines: Had he been formally tried and condemned, they would not have used that word. To these I add the Testimony of Cyrillus Scythopolitanus, who flourished in Palestine at that time. After the death, 
(a) Vitâ S. Sabae c. 90. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  says he, of the Archbishop Peter, Macarius being through the boldness of the Neolauritans ordained in his stead, and there being great Riots in the City, the most pious Emperor incensed against Ascidas and the Origenists, commanded Macarius to be expelled his Bishopric. Now the Abbot Conon and his Associates, took hold of that opportunity, and presented the Emperor a Libel concerning the impious Doctrine of the Origenists; and by that means being admitted to speak freely to the Emperor, got Eustochius, the Oeconomus of the Church of Alexandria, then at Constantinople, to be nominated Patriarch. So our most holy Emperor commanded Eustochius to be ordained Patriarch, and a General Council to be called. Theophane's, says 
(b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Chronogr. ad an 2. justini jun. He mistakes the Reign, and places it under Iustinian's Successor.  Macarius, was wrongfully deposed, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. factione, as Anastasius Bibliothecarius renders it, by a malicious Conspiracy of his Enemies.  
Eustochius being thus promoted, was owned as Patriarch of jerusalem by the whole Catholic Church in the Fifth General Council, in which he had his Representatives: and continued Patriarch about 
(c) Nicephorus Patriarch, and Theophanes allow him but one Year: (and so Baronius:) But in the Author which they followed, there seems to have been an Error in the writing, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. He was made Patriarch the 25th. Year of justinian, just before the Fifth General Council was summoned, as appears from Cyril of Scythopolis' Words, and wa● deposed on the 37th. of the same Emperor, as Victor Tun. asserts. It appears from Cyril of Scythop. at the end of S. Sabas' Life, that he was Patriarch the 23d. Year after S. Sabas' Death; i. e. the 28th. or 29th. of justinian, a Year and more after the end of the Fifth General Council. Baronius is extremely mistaken concerning these Patriarches. He order 'em thus: 1. Macarius. 2. Eustochius. 3. Macarius again. 4. Eustochius again, after the Death of Macarius, before the Fifth General Council.  eleven or twelve Years.  
After this he himself was deposed by the Emperor, and 
* Victor. Tun. Chron. ad an. Justiniani 37. Eustochius Hierosolymitanus Episcopus, qui fuerat Macario superstite ordinatus, ejicitur: & rursum Macarius reformatur.  Macarius was again, restored, having cleared himself from the Imputation of Heresy, by subscribing to the Condemnation of Origen, Evagrius and Didymus. The Historian Evagrius, where he reckons up the several Patriarches that governed the Catholic Church about the end of Iustinian's Reign, has these words: 
(a) L. 4. c. 39 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Macarius was Patriarch of Jerusalem, being restored to his Throne, after the Deposition of Eustochius, because he had Anathematised Origen, Didymus, and Evagrius. For what reason Eustochius was deposed, Evagrius does not tell us. Nicephorus Callisti 
(b) L. 17. c. 29. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The words which I have enclosed in a Parenthesis, the Latin Interpreter did not understand.  tells us, that the Emperor deposed him, because he refused to subscribe to his Opinions (concerning the Incorruptibility of the Body of Christ. But Theophanes gives us another reason 
(c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Chronogr. ad an. 3. Justini Jun. : He says it was, because he expelled the Monks of the Nova Laura (in Palestine) as Origenists. What the true Reason was, is not easy to guests. As for that which Nicephorus assigns, it seems to be confirmed by an Epistle of Nicetius, Bishop of Trier, to the Emperor, concerning the Heresy which he had lately embraced; in which he mentions, that the Emperor, to advance his Doctrine, had expelled several Bishops out of their Sees. What several Bishops those should be, we know not, unless Eustochius might be one of 'em; for we read of but one deposed on that account, and that was Eutychius the Patriarch of Constantinople. But then, on the other side, how Eustochius, Patriarch of jerusalem, should be deposed on that account by the Emperor, when none of the other Foreign Patriarches were deposed, and at least a Year or two before even the Patriarch of Constantinople himself was deposed, I cannot easily imagine. And besides, it is likely that Eustratius, who lived at Constantinople in those times, and wrote the Life of the Patriarch Eutychius, who was deposed for not subscribing to the Emperor's Doctrine, would have spoken somewhere of the Patriarch of jerusalem his having been deposed on the same account; especially since he mentions, that Anastasius, Patriarch of Antioch, was on that account extremely persecuted by the Emperor, and upon the brink of Deprivation. As for the Reason given by Theophanes; that I am sure is false. For it appears by the express Testimony of 
(a) Vità S. Sabae ad finem: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Cyrillus Scythopolitanus, that the Neolauritan● were expelled by the emperor's own Command, because they refused to anathematise Origen, Didymus and Evagrius, according to the Decree of the Fifth General Council.  
Macarius being restored upon the Ejectment of Eustochius, was owned and received by all as Patriarch of jerusalem, and enjoyed the Honour till he died, which was four Years. johannes Moschus 
(b) Prato Spirit. c. 69. aliis 96.  tells us of one julianus, a Monk of Palestine, who doubted for some time whether or no he ought to communicate with the Archbishop Macarius, and went to S. simeon Stylites (the latter of that Name) to ask his Advice, desiring to know 
(c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  how he ought to carry himself towards a Brother who had committed Fornication, and towards one who by Oath had engaged himself to his Party? S. simeon answered: 
(d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Do not separate thyself from the holy Church; for by the grace of our Lord jesus Christ the Son of God, she is not amiss. The reason why the Monk scrupled to communicate with Macarius, was, because he thought him an Origenist: Whether it happened before he was deposed, or after he was restored, is uncertain: I believe it was before he was deposed. In the 
(e) Ap. Surium ad Novemb. 23. c. 10. etc.  Life of S. Gregory, Bishop of Agrigentum, he is honoured with the Title of 
(f) Cum in D. Macarii Episcopi congressum venissent, etc.  Saint, is said to have the Gift of Prophecy, and to have ordained S. Gregory Deacon: But this Life, tho' it be quoted by Baronius, etc. as true, is nothing but the Forgery of Metaphrastes, and all those Stories are notorious Lies. For in the same Life it is said, that S. Gregory was made Bishop of Agrigentum after the time of the Sixth General Council, in which the Patriarches 
(g) Vide c. 24, etc.  Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paulus and Cyrus, were condemned as Monothelites; which Council was called in the Year 681, near 120 Years after the Death of our Patriarch Macarius. However, from hence we may gather what opinion Posterity had of that Patriarch.  
Concerning any Schism occasioned by Macarius when he was deposed, or afterwards by Eustochius, not a word in any Author.   

CHAP. X.  
Eutychius Patriarch of Constantinople being violently deposed by the Emp. Justinian for refusing to subscribe to his Heresy, John surnamed Scholasticus is made Patriarch in his room. After John was consecrated Patriarch, Eutychius was condemned by an Assembly that consisted as well of Lay-Lords a Bishops, not only of ecclesiastics as the Vindicator contends. He actually lays claim to the See, despises the Sentence of his judges as null and invalid, because they proceeded unjustly and uncanonically against him, and Excommunicates them. Notwithstanding all this, his Successor, because he proved Orthodox, was received and owned by all the Church as a true Patriarch: He continued in the See near 13 years; near 12 years under Justin the Younger an Orthodox Emp. He is owned by the Church of Constantinople tho' at the same time Eutychius was exceedingly beloved. John an Orthodox Patriarch of Alexandria is consecrated by him. For what reason Anastasius Patriarch of Antioch reproved the Patriarch of Alexandria for being ordained by him. Anastasus did not refuse to communicate with him. He is Honoured by the Patriarch Photius with the Title of Saint. Tho' Eutychius looked upon his Deprivation as absolutely invalid, and tho' he never resigned but accounted himself still the rightful Patriarch, yet he lived quietly, and never endeavoured to make a Division in the Church. Dr. Crakanthorp's Opinion, that Eutychius was deposed for being a Heretic, confuted. The Authority of the Life of Eutychius, often quoted in this Chapter, vindicated against the same Author.  
IN the Year 565, Eutychius Patriarch of Constantinople, whom I mentioned in the foregoing Chapter, was deposed by the Emp. justinian, and john, formerly an Advocate, afterwards a Presbyter of Antioch, whom resided at that time at Constantinople as Apocrisiarius for the Church of Antioch, (the same with him whose Collection of Canons is extant in the Bibliotheca juris Canonici) was advanced to the See. This Instance the Author of our Baroccian Treatise takes notice of. In the Reign (says he) of the Emp. Justinian, Eutychius of Amasia being constituted Patriarch of Constantinople, a Man holy and beloved of God, was unjustly deposed, and expelled the City, and John was preferred to the See. But Eutychius did not upon that account separate himself from the Communion of John, and both therefore were received by the Church.  
The Collector of the Synodicon 
* Synod. 119. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  tells us, that the Emp. called a Synod, and deposed Eutychius, because he refused to subscribe to the Doctrine maintained by that Synod, i. e. because he refused to subscribe to the Heresy of the Aphthartodocetae, who thought our Saviour's Humane Nature incorruptible, which the Emp. and his Synod maintained. The truth is this; He was first banished by the Emp. and after his Successor was ordained, he was condemned by a Synod or Assembly, consisting partly of Bishops, and partly of Lay-Lords. 
(a) L. 4. c. 38.  Evagrius passes over this business too slightly, and only says, That he was expelled; for what, or whether by a Synod or not, he does not acquaint us. That he was deposed by the Emperor is expressly asserted by 
(b) Chron.  Victor Tun. 
(c) Chronog p. 203.  Theophanes, 
(d) Chronol.  Nicephorus the Patriarch, 
(e) Annal. p. 272.  Glycas, 
(f) Annal. l. 14. c. 9  Zonaras, 
(g) Hist. Comp.  Cedrenus, 
(h) Catalogo Patriarcharum MS.  Nicephorus Callisti; and so the Emp. 
(i) Synaxario M. Aprilis apud Acta Sanctorum. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Basilius intimates; of whom not one makes any mention of a Synod. A particular and exact account of the whole matter we have in his Life, which was written by Eustratius (commonly, but erroneously called Eustathius) who was one of his Presbyters, and a constant Attendant upon him, both before, and in his Banishment. The Life is extant not only in Latin, as the Vindicator believed, but likewise in 
(k) Ed. à Papebrochio ad finem tomis 1 Aprilis. Act. Sanct.  Greek. And this is the Account he gives us. The Emp. (says Eustratius) desired him to subscribe to the Doctrine of the Aphthartodocetae 
(l) §. 37, 38, 39 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. , which when he refused to do, he was persuaded by some of his Nobles, and by certain Priests, to depose him; which accordingly he did. For on S. Timothy 's Day, as Eutychius was officiating in the Church of Hormisdas, his Palace was violently entered by a Captain, together with his Soldiers, who seized his Servants, designing to make 'em witness something against him, that he might not seem to have been deposed without some cause. When the Patriarch understood that they had broken into his Palace and carried away and imprisoned some of his Servants, after he had made an end of Divine Service and had administered the Sacrament, he stayed in the Chancel; for he was told by some, that if he went out of the Church it might cost him his Life, there being some armed Men that expected his coming forth. On this account he stood still before the Altar after he had dismissed the People, arrayed in his proper Vestments till the third hour of the Night, still holding up his Hands to Heaven, and beseeching God to preserve the Orthodox Faith, and the Church in Tranquillity. When he had done praying, the Monks and Priests that were with him, advised him to eat somewhat; which when he had done and had slept a little, there came in upon him that great wild Beast Aetherius, with a great company armed with Swords and Clubs, who took him and carried him away to a Monastery called Choracudin: where after he had stayed one day, because 'twas a miserable poor place, his Adversaries took pity on him (for even his Enemies themselves admired his Virtue) and ordered him to be carried to the Monastery of the Holy (Virgin) which was near Chalcedon. And without examining whether he had been justly or unjustly deposed, they irregularly ordained another in his stead, and eight days after that, they appointed a Court of judicature consisting of Bishops and Princes, who cited him, after he had been already deposed and condemned without any Examination, to plead his Cause before 'em, and to answer to the Charge that was brought against him. The Accusations brought against him were these ridiculous ones 
(a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. , That he had fed deliciously upon small Birds; and that he had prayed many hours together upon his Knees, together with others more ridiculous than these. When those Bishops and Noblemen who were sent to him from the Court of judicature, to require him to make his appearance, came to him, To whom (says he) are ye come? What Title do you give me? They answered, being compelled by Truth; that of our Lord and Father. Who, says he, is your Lord and Father? We are come, answered they, as it were chastised by some invisible Powers, to our Patriarch the Lord Eutychius. I am (says he) a Patriarch by the Grace of God, and no Man shall take away this Dignity from me. Who is he whom you have constituted in my place? They being not able to answer to these things, returned, as baffl'd to those that sent 'em. But the same Court (or Assembly) acting contrary to all Canons, sent according to the prescription of the Canons, a second and a third Citation to him. To which he answered: If I am to be judged according to the Canons, let my Clergy and my Patriarchal Dignity be restored me, and then I will make my Defence, and will produce for Witnesses, even my accusers themselves. The Court having received this Answer, did nothing agreeable to Reason, but passed such a Sentence upon him as was worthy of them. Which being done, he denounced upon all them a Sentence of Excommunication till such time as they should repent and correct what they had done. The Court have passed their mock Sentence upon him, that they might seem to have done justly what they did unjustly (for the same Men were both his Accusers and judges) they removed him from the place where he was, to an Island called the Prince's Island. Where, after he had continued under a Guard for three Weeks, 'twas decreed by the same judges that he should be carried to Amasea, there to live in the Monastery which he himself had built. Which accordingly was done.  
It is here expressly said, that the Court by which he was condemned consisted partly of Bishops, and partly of Lay-Lords or Princes. In the Greek, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. In the Latin Translation, which the Vindicator read; Coacto conventu Episcoporum & Principum. Concerning these Principes, what they were, the Vindicator has these words: What the Greek word was here (says he) we know not; nor therefore can we determine whether the Princes were Chorepiscopi, or Prefects of Monasteries, who by this time began to take upon 'em in Affairs relating to Ecclesiastical Cognisance, as having very considerable Ecclesiastical Bodies under 'em, who would be concluded by their Suffrages. Certainly they were ecclesiastics: For in the Synods of those times, tho' there were present Secular Persons to represent the Emperor, yet they never used to Vote: Only they took care that all things should be fairly managed, and made their Reports to the Emperor accordingly. And indeed the Secular part of the Deprivation had already been performed in sending the Patriarch into Exile. Nor was it requisite by the Lex Regia (as it was called) in those times, that the Emperor should have any concurrence of Council for Affairs of this nature. It was therefore undoubtedly a Synod, and is owned for such in the Greek Synodicon. And accordingly they send their Summons to Eutychius by persons of their own rank, Bishops and Princes, which was the way of Synods not of Imperial Councils. In answer to all this, lest the Learned Vindicator should be apt to fancy, that what he says is not confuted by the Greek Title 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, lest he should persuade himself, that by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here in this place may be understood ecclesiastics, I shall desire him to consult Dufresne's 
* Graec. in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lat. in Archontes. APXONTE●, universim appellati Magnates & Proceres Aulae Constantinopolitanae, etc.  Glossaries. From them he may be convinced, that by the Title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not any ecclesiastics, but only Lay-Governours and Noblemen, or the Grandees of the Emperor's Court, are to be understood. So the Nobles were simply entitled, and their Ladies were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; the Order of Noblemen was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And Latin Historians, when they mention the Lora's of the Constantinopolitan Court, are wont to call 'em Archontes. Ex quo c●im in Aegyptum descenderant ejus (imperatoris Constantinopolitaniss) Archontes, says 
(a) Bell. Sac. l. 3. c. 18.  Gulielmus Tyrius. Romanae Constantinopolitanae dignitatis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. Principes, says 
(b) L. 3. c. 9  Luitprandus. A hundred Examples are produced by the Learned Dufresne, and a thousand more might be easily produced, if need were. I shall only advise my Reader, that in the Acts of the Councils, the Lay-Lords or Noblemen, who sat in the Councils together with the ecclesiastics, are wont to be distinguished from the ecclesiastics by this Title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. In the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, not all the Nobles that sat in that Council, but only some few of the great Officers of the Court, have the honour of that Title; and by that are distinguished as well from the Senate, which was likewise present in that Council, as from 
(c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Act. 1. p. 97. Vide in initio singularum actionum.  the Bishops or ecclesiastics. In the Second Council of Nice, the Two great Temporal Lords that sat there, are always 
(d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Act. 1. Sic in Actionibus sequentibus: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  distinguished by the Title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 both from Bishops, and from Prefects of Monasteries. In the Acts of the IV General Council of Constantinople, the Temporal Lords that sat there, are sometimes called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, very frequently 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as well simply as with an Epithet, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. In Anastasus Bibliothecarius his 
(e) Act. 1. p. 985.  Latin Version: Omnes Episcopi cum magnificentissimis Principibus clamaverunt. Photius, (says 
(f) Vita Ignatii Patriarchae, Tom Conc. p. 1204.  Nicetas Paphlagonius) gathered against Ignatius, the ejected Patriarch, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. In the Account of the Trial and Condemnation of S. Martin Bishop of Rome, translated out of Greek by Anastasius Bibliothecarius, the Senators who were his Judges (there were no Bishops among 'em) are entitled Principes, from the Greek Title 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. It is said in the Greek 
(g) Syn. 148.  Synodicon, that certain Bishops and Monks, that were disaffected to the Patriarch Ignatius, got him to be deposed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. In which place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies the Secular Power; so appropriated to the Lasty was the Title 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. To this I add, that in the Euchologium the Title 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is explained by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 
(a) P. 931. Goar renders it thus, Oratio in promotione Procerum veletiam Patriciorum; but the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Prayer which follows, shows that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not to be taken in a disjunctive, but in an explanative sense, and that by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were meant the same.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
This being premises, there are Three things to be observed concerning Eutychius' Deprivation. 1. That the Successor, john, was ordained and possessed of the See, before Eutychius had been condemned by any Court of Judicature. Agreeably to this 
(b) Loco inferiùs cit.  Nicephorus Callisti tells us, that john was ordained Patriarch but three days after Eutychius was violently deposed by the Emperor. 2. That the Court that afterwards condemned him, consisted as well of Lay-Lords as Bishops. 3. That he never gave up his Right, but looked upon himself still as the rightful Patriarch, laid claim to the See, and excommunicated the Assembly that condemned him, as acting contrary to the Prescription of the Canons, and therefore invalidly.  
Tho' such were the Circumstances of Eutychius' Deprivation and of John's Promotion, yet by all the Orthodox, both of that Age, and likewise of the following Ages, john was owned and received as a true Patriarch of Constantinople.  
1. He continued Patriarch not only till the Death of the Emperor justinian, (which was not above three quarters of a Year after his promotion) but likewise for many Years after; and that too under an Emperor, who did not follow the Heresy of justinian, but was all along a Defender of the Orthodox Faith. The Emperor justinian junior, says 
(c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, p. 204.  Theophanes, was completely Orthodox. 
(d) L. 4. c. 1.  Evagrius, 
(e) Chron.  joannes Biclarienses, and others, affirm the same; and it plainly appears by his 
(f) Ap. Evag. l. 4. c. 14.  Edict concerning the true Faith, under that Emperor our john continued Patriarch of Constantinople during all his own Life, for the space of near 
(g) Some Authors make the Emperor justin. jun. to reign in all not above eleven years, or eleven years and eight months, but it is a mistake.  Twelve Years, and died Aug. 31. A. 577. after he had governed in all Twelve Years Seven Months and Two and Twenty Days. It's observed by one of the 
(h) A farther Account of the Baroc. MS. p. 12.  Answerers of the Baroccian Treatise, out of Nicephorus Callisti, That the Emperor Justinian became so sensible of the injury he had done Eutychius, and of his right to the Chair of Constantinople, that upon his death Bed he ordered his Successor Justin to restore him. And this (says he) was presently done; for Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople, says, John sit but two Years; and Paulus Diaconus says Eutychius crowned Justin. He adds, That John died in a very convenient 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: That he knows other Historians put off John 's Death and Eutychius 's Restauration to the Ninth or Tenth Year of Justin; but they are Men (he says) of little Credit, and Dr. Crakanthorp in his Book of the Fifth Synod p. 340. has confuted them already. So far our Author, with no less Ignorance than Assurance. That Crakanthorp pretends to confute those Authors, is true; that he has really confuted 'em, none will affirm but such as are as little acquainted with Antiquity as our Answerer. 'Tis true, That Nicephorus Callisti relates, that the Emperor justinian gave order on his Deathbed that Eutychius should be restored: But he does not say 
(a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. , that justinian ordered that john should be deposed that so Eutychius might be restored. Nicephorus understood the Emperor's meaning to be this, That Eutychius should be restored provided he outlived the present Possessor: For 
(b) L. 17. c. 36. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  afterwards he has these words: Justin, after the Death of the Patriarch John, recalled Eutychius, as Justinian had ordered in his Will. If we go and consult the Arabians, we shall meet with some that will tell us, That Eutychius was restored by justinian himself. So 
(c) Tom. 2. p 184. Anno verò imperii sui 28. certior factus Eutychium Patrem Constantinopolitanum veritati contradicere, ac jacobitam factum esse, ipsum in exilium ejecit, cujus in locum suffectus est ibi Ioannes ut Patriarchatûs Constantinopolitam munere fungeretur, qui septem annos sedit, dein mortuus est. Tum Eutychius Patriarcha relegatus Imperatorem aggressus est ope Consiliariorum ac Ducum, qui ipsum rogarunt, ut eum Cathedrae restitueret, siquidem falsum fuisse quod de eo dictum fuerat; Cathedrae ergo ab Imperatore restitutus est; quam cum quadriennio occupaverat, mortuus est. Anno ejusdem 39 constitutus est Iohannes Patriarcha Constantinopolitanus; annos 13. sedit, dein mortuus est.  Said Ebu Batric in his Arabic Annals. But as for that Author, he plainly discovers, that he knew just nothing of the Matter: Yet even he himself allows our Patriarch john no less than Seven Years. When Paulus Diaconus says, That the Emperor justin was crowned by Eutychius, he 
(d) He takes no notice at all of Eutychius' being ever deposed, or that john was ever Patriarch.  commits a manifest not only Error but Blunder: For 
(e) justinus Imperator, nepos justiniani, coronatus à Ioanne Patriarcha.  Anastasius Bibliothecarius, the Author whom he follows, says expressly, that it was john that crowned the Emperor justin. And so 'tis expressly affirmed in 
(f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Theophanes his Chronography, out of which Anastasius translated his History, and (out of Theophanes) likewise by Cedrenus. But granting (you will say) that Paulus Diaconus errs, and that justin was crowned by john; yet how does it appear that john continued Patriarch for so many years? It appears, First, from the Testimony of Nicephorus Callisti, who in his MS. Catalogue 
(g) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  of the Patriarches of Constantinople affirms, that john continued Patriarch 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 12 Years and 7 Months. And hence it plainly appears, that in Nicephorus the Patriarch's Chronology, it ought to be read, not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. I need not observe that the Greek Copy of Nicephorus' Chronology, out of which Anastasius Bibliothecarius made his Latin Translation 
(a) joannes Presbyter Antiochiae e● numero Scholasticorum, an. 12. m. 7. , had as I have corrected it. The thing is plain of itself. In the same Chronology, it is said, by a like mistake of the Transcriber, that Eutychius was restored 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Nicephorus Callisti in his 
(b) After the words above-cited, it follows; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  MS. Catalogue adds, That Eutychius was restored upon John' s Death the 12 th'. Year of the Emperor Justin. Secondly, In the Catalogue of the Patriarches of Constantinople, which is extant in Leunclavius' 
(c) P. 299. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (it male) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Ius Graeco-Romanum, the same time abating but one Month, is allotted him. And the same Author affirms, that he was Patriarch not only under justin, but likewise under Tiberius; meaning, that time in which Tiberius had the management of Affairs together with justin, as Caesar. Thirdly, That john continued Patriarch till Aug. 31. Indict. 10. the 12th. Year of the Emperor justin, is expressly 
(d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ad an. 12. justini jun. Anastasius Bibl. in his Latin Translation, thus; Tertio decimo imperii Iustini anno, joanne Constantinopolitano defuncto Episcopo, Eutychius recepit iteratò thronum eundem.  asserted by Theophanes; who adds, That Eutychius was restored on 
(e) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. So Cedrenus, who follows Theophanes; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (in ed. malè 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  October following. It appears from this exact account which Theophanes has given us of the time of John's Death, that he was Patriarch (as I said) 12 Years, 7 Months and 22 Days. For from 
(f) Eustrasius tells us that he was deposed on St. Timothy's day, which in the Greek Calendar is the 22d. of January: and in another place he says expressly, that it was Jan. 22. Theophanes says he was deposed Apr. 12. (Ind. 13) but erroneously.  january 22. Indict 13. on which Eutychius was deposed, to Aug. 31. Indict. 10. on which john died, is 12 Years, 7 Months and 25 Days; and john was made Patriarch three days after Eutychius was deposed. Fourthly, Evagrius, who flourished in those very times, says, That 
(g) L. 5. c. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. etc. At this time, according to Evagrius, the Emperor justin spoke his famous Speech to Tiberius. Theophanes, and after him Zonaras and Cedrenus, by mistake make him speak that Speech when (as they say) he created Tiberius' Emperor, three years after he had created him Caesar. On this account Evagrius seems to make john live longer than Theophanes makes him live: for Theophanes says that john died just before Tiberius was made Emperor, and that Speech was spoken. But the difference between them is only in the time when that Speech was spoken.  john was Patriarch at that time when Tiberius was created Caesar: which according to Evagrius himself was many Years after the beginning of Iustin's Reign. The Chronicon Paschale assures us, it was on the Eighth Indiction, September 7, the Emperor's Eighth Year: He should have said, the Emperor's Tenth Year; for September 7. Indict. 8. falls in with the end of the Tenth Year of that Emperor. So Theophanes tells us, That Tiberius was made Caesar on the Tenth Year of the Emperor justin. Fifthly, That Eutychius was not restored till after Tiberius was made Caesar, is attested likewise by the Emperor 
(a) Synazario Aprilis: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Basilius, who tells us, that he was restored by justin and Tiberius. Sixthly, That john was Patriarch of Constantinople at least some Years after the beginning of justin, may be confirmed from the Testimony of the Patriarch 
(b) Biblioth. Cod. 75.  Photius: for he mentions his acting as Patriarch on the 1 saint. Indiction, which was three Years after the death of justinian. To all these I add the Testimony of Eustratius the Writer of Eutychius' Life, who tells us in express words, That our Patriarch john died a little before Eutychius was restored, and that Eutychius was restored by justin and Tiberius, and that he continued at Amasea in Banishment above 
(c) §. 63. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Twelve Years.  
Secondly, as it is to be presumed, that john was generally received and acknowleged as a true Bishop of Constantinople since he sat in the Chair as long as he lived, for the space of Twelve Years and about Eight Months, and under an Orthodox Emperor; so particularly it appears from Eustratius, that the People of Constantinople did all in general acknowledge him, and that too, tho' at the same time they exceedingly loved Eutychius, and looked upon him as unjustly deposed. Eustratius tells us, That 
(d) §. 65. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.  as soon as John was dead (not before) the People petitioned the Emperors justin and Tiberius, that their old Patriarch might be restored. He adds concerning the Emperors, That they had a very great respect for him even whilst he was in Banishment; and that sufficiently appears from their restoring him. And here it is to be observed, that tho' they had a great Honour for him, and looked upon him to be unjustly deposed, yet because john was now possessed of the See, they did not think there was any Reason why they should turn out john to restore him, they therefore stayed till john was dead, and then restored him. How much he was beloved by all sorts of People, as well of other places as of Constantinople, and how much all rejoiced at his being restored 
(a) Lege S. 71, 72, etc. , and with how great Pomp and Splendour he was 
(b) S. 74. Having described the pompous reception of St. Athanasius into Alexandria after his banishment, out of Gregory Naziazzen, he adds, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Ad hunc ergo modùm ' etiam nunc suam in urbem regressus est magnus & admirabilis Eutychius, cum edquè celebritate, ut licet ab omni retro tempore multae multorum honorificae Exceptiones factae sint non solùm Principibus sed etiam Sacerdotibus & Palatinis illustrioribus, nulla frequentior aut gloriosior fuisse memoretur, sed ipsa sola praecellat & superaverit omnes.— Quis dicendo posset assequi res admirandas, mari terràque tunc gestas? quomodo scilicet constratus sit pontus, tergáque sua navibus subjiciens telluri factus fuerit similis, ade● ut sine impedimento possent omnes super ipsum incedere, & nemo prae multitudine hominum aquam ab humo discerneret, utráque autem esset labium unum, uóxque divina & coelestis omnium, Domini & Creatoris sui gloriam celebrantium.  received at Constantinople, Eustratius describes at large.  
Thirdly, It appears from the express Testimony of Theophanes, That john Patriarch of Alexandria, Successor to Apollinarius, and Predecessor to Eulogius, was ordained Patriarch by our john of Constantinople; and that tho' he was so ordained, yet he was owned by the Church, and continued in the See of Alexandria 
(c) Theophanes & Nicephorus Patriarcha in Chronolog.  Eleven Years. Said Ebn Batric, who was Patriarch of Alexandria about 600 Years ago, mentions one john Patriarch of that See, and Successor to Apollinarius, whom he styles a Manichee, and says, that he governed but Three Years, and was succeeded by one Athanasius a jacobite; But this john was not he of whom Theophanes speaks, but one of the Heretical Patriarches of Alexandria. For in those days the two several Parties of Alexandria, the Melchites and the jacobites, had two distinct Patriarches. Said 
(d) Anno imperii ejusdem (justini junioris) sexto constitutus est ibidem Patriarcha johannes, Orthodoxus, qui XI. annos sedit, dein mortuns est. Annal. tom. 2. p. 187.  himself mentions a little after, one john an Orthodox Patriarch of Alexandria, the Predecessor of Eulogius, who governed, as he says, Eleven Years, and was made Patriarch the Sixth Year of the Emperor justin junior. This is he whom Theophanes speaks of. 
(e) L. 5. c. 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Evagrius speaks of him, as of a Bishop acknowleged by all.  
Fourthly, It likewise appears, that Anastasius, the Patriarch of Antioch, communicated with john of Constantinople, and that too, tho' he himself, had it not been prevented by Iustinian's death, had been turned out of his See for defending that Truth for which Eutychius was deposed; and consequently must be supposed to have had a great esteem for Eutychius, and no great love for his Successor john. Concerning Anastasius, 
(f) Chronogr. p. 206. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Theophanes has these words. In the Fifth Year of the Emperor Justin the Younger, the great Anastasius Bishop of Antioch, having severely reprehended John Bishop of Constantinople, who had ordained John Patriarch of Alexandria, and likewise the Patriarch of Alexandria himself who had been ordained, viz. in his Answer to the Synodical Letter, which John of Alexandria had sent him, was thrust out of his Bishopric by the Emperor, who was angry with him for it; and Gregory a Monk was Consecrated Patriarch in his room. Agreeably to this Relation, 
(a) Vitâ Gregorii Magni, l. 4. c. 25. qui (Anastatius) joannem Constantinopolitanum Praesulem voce liberâ reprehendens Imperatoris Iustini jussu detrusus in exilium.  joannes Diaconus tells us, That Anastasius was banished by the Emperor Justin, because he freely reproved John Bishop of Constantinople. But he only follows Theophanes, with whose Chronography which his great Friend Anastasius Bibliothecarius had turned into Latin, he was doubtless well acquainted. 
(b) Not. in Evagr. l. 5. c. 5.  Valesius, and after him some other Learned Men are of Opinion, that therefore those two Patriarches were reproved by Anastasius, because the one was put into Eutychius' place, and the other therefore ought not to have been ordained by him. This none of our Adversaries have observed: but I observe it for 'em; for it is not my design to shuffle, conceal, and prevaricate, but to present the Reader with a fair and impartial account of the Practice of the Ancients. Now to this I answer, 1. That if Anastasius had absolutely refused to communicate with john of Constantinople, yet it cannot be proved that he did so because john was put into the place of the unjustly deposed Eutychius: For the reason of his refusing to own him as Bishop of Constantinople, might have been only because he thought him not Orthodox. Since Eutychius was turned out because he would not subscribe to the Doctrine of the Aphthartodocetae, it might reasonably be thought, that john, who was put into his place, did actually subscribe. And that he was thought by some, to be one of that Party, appears from the Author of the 
(c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Synodicon, who says, That He complied with the Doctrine of those that deposed his Predecessor: And likewise from 
(d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Eustratius, who assures us, that therefore they deposed Eutychius, that they might put in one who would comply with 'em; and he plainly enough intimates, that john did so. No wonder therefore if Anastasius, who was the great Defender of the contrary Doctrine, and had been himself condemned by justinian to be deposed on that account, was so much prejudiced against john, as not to like that the Patriarch of Alexandria should be ordained by his hands. This (I say) might have been Anastasius' Opinion and Prejudice. Yet it is not certain, that john did actually subscribe. Eustratius was his very great Enemy, and the Author of the Synodicon, might speak only by Conjecture. At least this is certain, that if he ever subscribed, he quickly retracted, and proved a very Orthodox Patriarch. This appears, not only from his continuing so long under an Orthodox Emperor, and from his being so generally received; but likewise by the Edict which was published in the beginning of Iustin's Reign. That Edict is not only Orthodox in general, but does likewise strike particularly at the Doctrine of the Aphthartodocetae, by declaring 
(a) L. 4. c. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. , That the Body of Christ was subject to all the Passions to which our Bodies are subject. It cannot be doubted but that the Patriarch himself was the chief Promoter of this Edict, and it's very probable, that he himself was the Composer of it. That 
(b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  all subscribed to it, is attested by Evagrius. To this I must add, That the Patriarch 
(c) Biblioth. Cod. 75. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Photius mentions a Catechetical Oration, which our Patriarch spoke and published on the First Indiction, i. e. three Years after the beginning of Iustin's Reign, in which he laid down matters of Faith Divinely, as Photius says, concerning the Holy Trinity, and against which joannes Philoponus the Heretic wrote a Treatise. Secondly, If we suppose, according to Valesius' Conjecture, that the reason why Anastasius reprehended the two Patriarches, was, because the Ordainer succeeded the unjustly deposed Eutychius; yet from the words of Theophanes, it cannot be inferred, that he refused to communicate either with him or with the Patriarch of Alexandria whom he had ordained. On the contrary, it may be gathered from Theophanes' words, that he did not refuse their Communion. For if he had refused their Communion, Theophanes would have said so; he would not have said only, that he reprehended 'em. Besides, if Anastasius was deposed for reprehending john of Constantinople because put into Eutychius' place, from thence it may be concluded, that before that time, which was near Five Years after the Expulsion of Eutychius, he all along communicated with him: For if the Emperor did so highly resent his reproving john of Constantinople on that account, he would doubtless have been deposed before that time, if he had refused on that account to communicate with him. But Thirdly, It does not appear that was the Reason for which Anastasius reproved the two Patriarches of Constantinople and Alexandria. It does not, I say, appear, that it was, as Valesius conjectures, because john of Constantinople by whom He of Alexandria was ordained, was put into Eutychius' place. There may be another Reason assigned, more probable than that. 'Tis expressly enacted by the General Council of Nice, That all Metropolitans should be Consecrated by the Bishops of their own Province: The Ordination of a Patriarch of Alexandria by the Patriarch of Constantinople was directly against that Canon, and 'twas looked upon by the other Patriarches as a great Presumption in the Patriarch of Constantinople to pretend to ordain another Patriarch. This seems to be the thing which Anastasius, who was a nice observer of all Rules, so much disliked. He reproved the one for taking so much upon him, and the other for being ordained in a manner not agreeable to the Canons. In the same manner before those times, Simplicius, Pope of Rome, had reproved Acacius Patriarch of Constantinople, for taking upon him to Consecrate Steven and Calendion, Patriarches of Antioch. That this was the true Reason, Theophanes himself seems to imitate, if we duly consider his Words. It is to be supposed, that what was done as to that Ordination, was done by the Emperor's Order: And thence it came to pass, that the Emperor so highly resented the words of Anastasius' Letter, as reflecting no less upon himself, than upon the two Patriarches, the Ordainer and the Ordained. To this may be added, That it is not probable, that the Emperor justin should be so much displeased with Anastasius for reflecting on the Patriarch of Constantinople for his being put into Eutychius' place, since it was not himself, but justinian that deposed Eutychius, and since, as Eustratius affirms, he had still a great Honour for Eutychius, tho' he did not think fit to restore him as long as john lived.  
That Anastasius Patriarch of Antioch did not refuse to communicate with john of Constantinople, may be further confirmed from this Consideration, That Eustratius in the Life of Eutychius, though he 
(a) §. 41. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  mentions, that he, as well as Eutychius, boldly opposed the Doctrine advanced by justinian and his Synod, and suffered very much for doing so, yet speaks not a word of his refusing to communicate with Eutychius' Successor. And the same we may likewise gather from Evagrius. He speaking of the Reasons why the Emperor justin deposed Anastasius, makes no mention at all of his being deposed for either refusing to communicate with john of Constantinople, or for any severe words spoken against him on the account of his being constituted in Eutychius' place; but he 
(b) Lib. 5. c. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Porro justinus Anastasium quoque ex Antiochenâ Sede ejecit: objiciens ei, tum quòd Sacram pecaniam in superfluos ac minimè necessarios usus profudisset, tum quòd ipsi convitiatus esset. Nam cum interrogatus fuisset Anastasius, Curio adeò profusè Sacram pecuniam dilapidarct, disertè responderat, Ne à justino communi p●ste ac pernicie generis humani diriper●tur. Dicebatur autem Iustinus idcirco infeusus fuisse Anastasio, quòd cum pecuniam ab eo ad Episcopatum promoto postulavisset, Anastasius eam dare nolucrat. Objiciebantur praeterea eidem Anastasio alia quaedam, nonnullis Imperatoris proposito ac voluntati gratificari studentibus.  assigns other reasons for it. And if Anastasius had refused to communicate with john, it cannot be supposed, but that Evagrius, who lived at that time, and was Assessor to Anastasius' Successor, would somewhere have mentioned it.  
Fifthly, As neither Evagrius, nor Eustratius himself, nor any other Author makes any mention of Anastasius his refusing to communicate with john; so neither is there mention any where made of any the least disturbance in the Church on his account: No mention any where of any one person that declined his Communion.  
Sixthly, Tho' Eustratius, for his Lord, Eutychius his sake, was a very bitter Enemy of John's, and speaks in his Life of Eutychius, very virulently of him, yet he no where speaks reflectingly of any for receiving him as Bishop of Constantinople. His Life of Eutychius is an Oration made to the People in the great Church of Constantinople in praise of him: And certainly, if in those days it had been accounted unlawful to acknowledge a Bishop who was put into the place of another unjustly and uncanonically deposed, he would in some manner or other have expressed his dislike of the Churches owning and receiving john. The same we may observe of the several other Authors who speak of john and Eutychius. There is not so much as one that either says expressly or intimates, that the former ought not to have been received as Patriarch.  
Seventhly, It is certain, that he was acknowleged as a true Bishop of Constantinople by the Church in all following Ages. This appears not only by his being spoken of as such by Evagrius, Theophanes, Nicephorus the Patriarch, Nicephorus Callisti, Zonaras, Cedrenus, etc. 
(a) His Collection of Canons, tho' it was published when he was only Scholasticus, or an Advocate of Antioch, yet in many MSS. carries with it the Title of Patriarch of Constantinople, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. So a MS. in the Chancellor of France his Library. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, MS. Oxon. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. So a MS. in the King of France's Library.  but likewise from the Testimony of the Baroccian Treatise, the Author of which could not but be very well acquainted with the Diptyches of the Church of Constantinople. He affirms, That both John and Eutychius were received by the Church. To this I add, That 
(b) Bibl. Cod. 75. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. See the whole place above-cited.  Photius the Patriarch of Constantinople who flourished in the Year 858, calls our Patriarch john, Saint John, or John of blessed Memory, Archbishop of Constantinople. He was not only owned and received as a true Patriarch, but was likewise accounted a very worthy and a holy Patriarch.  
Eighthly, That there was no Schism, no Division in the Church on Eutychius' account, and that he himself, tho' he had never resigned, but always looked upon himself as the rightful Patriarch of Constantinople, did nevertheless continue in Communion with the Church, I gather from hence, That when john was dead, the Emperors justin and Tiberius, or the Emperor and Caesar, having decreed that Eutychius should be restored, sent Messengers away to Amasea, commanding 'em to bring him away to Constantinople to be restored to his Dignity, whether willing or unwilling. So Eustratius 
(c) §. 70. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  tells us expressly. So quietly did the good Man live in his Monastery at Amasea, so far from heading a Schism as an Antipatriarch, that the Emperors did not know, whether he was willing to be restored or not! And thus is confirmed what the Author of the Baroccian Treatise asserts. That Eutychius did not separate from John 's Communion.  
We must not bid Farewell to our Patriarch Eutychius till we have cleared him from a Charge and Accusation which Dr. Crakanthorp has laid against him. The Doctor in his 
(a) Part of his Book concerning the Fifth general Council.  Treatise concerning the Emperor justinian, in which he endeavours to clear that Emperor from the Imputation of Heresy against Cardinal Baronius, would needs persuade us, That the Patriarch Eutychius was not deposed by justinian because he refused to subscribe to the Doctrine of the Aphthartodocetae, but for being an Origenian Heretic. That Eutychius had written a Book concerning the Resurrection, in which he contended, that our Bodies after the Resurrection will not be properly Flesh and Blood, but Aereal and Impalpable, the Doctor proves from the Testimony of Pope Gregory the Great, who says, That he himself disputed against him.  
If this were the reason of Eutychius' being expelled, than all that we have alleged concerning the Church's acknowleging his Successor john, will be of no force, because Eutychius was a Heretic, and consequently his Expulsion just, whatsoever that Authority was by which he was expelled: I am therefore concerned to confute this pretended Reason. And, 1. I answer, That the Book which Eutychius published concerning the Resurrection, was so far from being published before the time of his Expulsion, that it was not published till after his Restauration. This plainly appears from what Pope Gregory says. He tells us, that when he resided at Constantinople (as Legate from Pope Pelagius in the Reign of the Emperor Tiberius) he had a great Dispute with the Patriarch Eutychius about that Subject, and 
(b) Tunc itaque de hac re in longâ contentione perducti gravissimâ à nobis caepimus simulatione resilire cum piae memoriae Tiberius Constantinus Imperator secretò me & illum suscipiens, quid inter nos discordiae versaretur agnovit, & utriúsque partis allegationem pensans, eundem librum, quem de resurrectione scripserat, suis quoque allegationibus destruens, deliberavit ut flammis cremari debuisset. A quo ut egressi sumus, une aegritudo valida, eundem verò Eutychium aegritudo & mors protinus est secuta. Quo mortuo quia pene nullus erat qui ejus dicta sequeretur, dissimulavi coepta persequi, ne in favellas viderer verba jaculari. Dum tamen adhuc viveret, & ego validissimis febribus aegrotarem, quicunque noti mei ad eum salutationis gratiâ pergebant, ut eorum relatione cognovi, ante eorum oculos pellem manûs suae tenebat, dicens: Confiteor, quia omnes in hac carne resurgemus. Quod, sicut ipsi fatebantur, omnino prius negare consueverat. L. 14. Moral. c. 29.  Tiberius having heard the Arguments of both sides, was about to condemn the Patriarch's Book to be burnt. Which had been done, says he, had not the Patriarch died. If Eutychius had been expelled by justinian for that Opinion which he then maintained, it cannot be supposed but that Pope Gregory would have given an account of it. 2. That Eutychius was deposed by justinian because he refused to subscribe to the Doctrine of the Aphthartodocetae, is unanimously asserted by all the Greek Authors who have mentioned the Reason of his Deprivation, by the Author of the Synodicon, Glycas, Zonaras, Theophanes, joel, Nicephorus Callisti, and Eustratius the Writer of his Life. Neither can it be supposed, that Eustratius assigned a false Reason that so he might salve his Reputation, and conceal his Opinions concerning the Resurrection; for had he beed deposed for maintaining any Heretical Opinion, there was no one but must have known it, and Eustratius would never have been so impudent as to give a false Reason before that great Congregation to whom he spoke his Oration. Neither does he conceal the Imputation which was by some fixed upon him concerning the Resurrection: After an account given of his Death, he 
(a) §. 88, 89, 90.  takes an occasion to speak of that Imputation, and he says it was occasioned by his being not rightly understood. To this I add, That it plainly appears from Evagrius, who lived and flourished at that time, that the Emperor justinian did just before his death endeavour to advance the Doctrine of the Aphthartodocetae, and published a Decree concerning it, requiring the Bishops to subscribe to it; who generally answered, as he tells us, that they would follow the Example of Anastasius Patriarch of Antioch, who (says he) could never be persuaded to subscribe, and had therefore been deposed, if the Emperor had not suddenly died. 'Tis a weak and injudicious Plea that of Crakanthorp, that Evagrius is guilty of several Errors: For let it be granted that he is (and what Historian is not?) yet how could he err in a thing of that nature? Since he flourished at that time, and was within a few years after Assessor to Anastasius' Successor, since he flourished at Antioch when Anastasius himself was Patriarch: How could he be mistaken in such a thing as that? He intimates, that he had read the Speech which Anastasius had composed and spoken to the People of Antioch when he understood that the Emperor designed to banish him: And he tells us, that Anastasius wrote Epistles concerning the Emperor's Doctrine to the Monks of Syria who had desired to know his Judgement. Among many other things that may be added, I shall only mention that (as has been already observed in the foregoing Chapter) there is extant in the Tomes 
(b) Tom. 5. p. 832.  of the Councils an Epistle from Nicetius Bishop of Trier, to the Emperor justinian concerning his Lapse. And in that Epistle 
(c) Patres à quibus benedictionem expectare debuisti, in exilium transmisisti.  Nicetius mentions, that the Emperor had for the Advance of his Erroneous Doctrine banished certain Bishops, alluding plainly to the Patriarch Eutychius' Expulsion.  
Dr. Crakanthorp finding that the Life of Eutychius made directly against his Opinion concerning the Emperor justinian his never falling into Heresy, endeavours to prove, that that Life was not written by one that lived at that time, but forged by some late Monk: and of this Opinion is one of the Answerers of the Baroccian Treatise, he whose words I but now produced, convinced by Crakanthorp's Arguments. I need not oppose this Opinion, that so it may be proved, that justinian fell into Heresy, and that Eutychius was deposed for refusing to subscribe to that Heresy; for these things I have sufficiently demonstrated from the concurrent Testimonies of other Writers. But because I have produced the Authority of that Life for several other things which cannot be proved from other Authors, I am therefore obliged to clear the Authority of it from the Objections alleged against it. The chief Argument brought against it by Crakanthorp is its making Eutychius to continue above 12 Years in Banishment, whereas it appears (says he) from Paulus Diaconus, that he was restored just after Iustinian's death, and that he crowned the Emperor justin; and from the Patriarch Nicephorus' Chronology, that he was in Banishment only two Years and Seven Months. This Argument I have already ready confuted. A Second Argument proposed by Crakanthorp, is this: It. is said in the Life; That after the Fifth General Council was summoned, Eutychius was sent to Constantinople by the Bishop of Amasea, who was then sick, to supply his place in that Council; that a little after he came to Constantinople Mennas' the Patriarch died, and so he was made Patriarch in his stead. This Relation, says Crakanthorp, is so untrue, that there are not so many Words as Lies therein: For the Fifth General Council, says he, was not summoned till the Six and Twentieth Year of justinian, and it appears from the Testimony of the Pope's Legates in the Third Act of the Sixth General Council, that the Patriarch Mennas' died in the One and Twentieth Year of justinian. To this I answer, That though it be true, that the Pope's Legates in the Sixth General Council affirm, That Mennas the Patriarch died on the One and Twentieth of justinian, yet, either they were extremely mistaken, or at least the Reading is Erroneous, and for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, it ought to be read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉). That Mennas' lived till after the One and Twentieth of justinian, and till the beginning of the Fifth General Council (as the Life of Eutychius relates) is undoubtedly certain from many other Authorities. 1. It is manifest from an Epistle of Pope Vigilius to Valentinianus, a Bishop of Scythia, 
(a) Datum XV. Kal. Apr. imperii Domini Iustinian perpetui ● Augusti anus XXIII. (sortè XXII●. says a marginal Note) post Consulatum Basilii viri cl. anno IX. (in the Margin X.)  dated XV. Kal. Apr. in the Three and Twentieth (or Four and Twentieth) Year of justinian, which is extant in the Acts of the 
(b) Collat. 7. p. 557.  Fifth General Council, that the Patriarch 
(c) Legant ergo quae de causâ quae hic mota est, ad fratrem nostrum Mennam Constantinopolitanum Episcopum scribentes legimur definisse— Credimus enim Catholicis Ecclesiae filiis ea quae tunc ad fratrem & cospiscopum nostrum Mennam scripsimus.  Mennas' was at that time living. 2. It appears from the Testimony of Theophanes, That he was living in September, the Fifteenth Indiction; and Theophanes particularly mentions 
(d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. p. 193.  that at that time he and Apollinarius Patriarch of Alexandria Consecrated the Church of S. Irene, and he gives a particular description of their Procession. He just after 
(e) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  adds, That Mennas' died and Eutychius succeeded him on that same Year. Now the former part of this Fifteenth Indiction falls in with the Five and Twentieth Year of justinian, and the latter part falls in with his Six and Twentieth Year. And to his Six and Twentieth Year Theophanes places the Fifth General Council. It appears from the 
(a) In the beginning Imperii Domini justiniani perpetui Augusti anno 27 post consulatum Basilii, anno 12. die quarto Nonas Maia's, Indictione prima. So likewise the Emperor's Commission is dated.  Acts of the Council that it began to sit in the beginning of the Seven and Twentieth Year of justinian, the Fourth Day of May, Eight Months after the end of that Year, or Indiction, on which Mennas died. And it is to be supposed, that the Summons were sent about a Year or more before that time. Thirdly, It is positively asserted by Evagrius, that Mennas was alive when first the Council was called, and he particularly observes, that he died a little after, and was succeeded by Eutychius 
(b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, l. 4. c. 38. . Vigilius says he, being Bishop of Rome, Mennas' first and then Eutychius being Bishop of Constantinople, Apollinarius being Bishop of Alexandria, Domninus of Antioch, and Eustochius of Jerusalem, the Fifth Council was called by Justinian. Evagrius, in what follows, gives us a particular account how 
(c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Prima igitur quaestione proposita, utrum liceret mortuos anathemati subjicere: Eutychius qui illic aderat, in sacris scripturis apprimè exercitatus, superstite adhuc Menâ, nondum valde illustris; erat enim etiam tum Apocrisiarius Episcopi Amasenorum: cum eos qui congregati erant, tanquam solertior, per contemptum adspexisset, apertè dixit, quaestionem illam deliberatione non egere. Quandoquidem. josias Rex Sacerdotes daemonum non modò vivos interfecisset, sed & eorum qui diu●ante mortui fuerant, sepulchra essodisset. Atque hoc ab Eutychio aptissimè dictum esse, cuncti qui aderant censuerunt. Quod cum Iustinianus intellexisset, Eutychium paulò pòst ad Pontificalem Urbis regiae sedem promovit, Menâ ex vivis sublato. Porro Vigilius per literas quidem consensit, Concilio tamen interesse noluit.  Eutychius came to be made Patriarch. It appears from him, that before the Council fate there were several Debates among those who were sent to the Council, and that in the time of those Debates Mennas was Patriarch. It appears likewise from that him, that before Mennas' died there were sent to Constantinople from Eustochius Patriarch of jerusalem, certain Legates to concert the Affair against the Origenists; and that those that were sent by Eustochius about that Business, were sent to the General Council, is expressly asserted by 
(d) Vita Sabae, c. 90.  Cyrillus Scythopolitanus. And here I observe, that all those previous Debates relating to the Origenian Heresy, were wont to be reckoned as part of the General Council itself. Hence it was that Theophanes places that Council to the Six and Twentieth, and Cedrenus and the Chronicon Paschale to the Five and Twentieth Year of justinian. Fourthly, It is likewise asserted by the Patriarch 
(a) Epist. de Synodis. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Photius, That Mennas and Eutychius one after the other presided in the Fifth General Council, together with Vigilius of Rome, etc. Fifthly, That Mennas' fate in the Chair of Constantinople Sixteen Years is asserted by 
(b) Catal. MS. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Nicephorus Callisti, and Theophanes, and Zonaras: Nicephorus the Patriarch adds the odd Months, and allots him Sixteen Years and Six Months: Now 'tis certain, that he was promoted on the Ninth Year of justinian (in the latter part of the Year which falls in with the Year of Christ 536.) and so says Nicephorus Callisti. And hence it must follow, that he died not on the One and Twentieth, but on the Five and Twentieth or Six and Twentieth of justinian. Sixthly, That Eutychius was Patriarch not above Twelve Years and Five Months before he was deposed, is asserted by 
(c) Loc. cit. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Nicephorus Callisti: Theophanes for the roundness of the number says 13 Years: The Patriarch Nicephorus allows him but Twelve Years, and two Months: Zonaras strikes off the odd Months, and allows him no more than Twelve Years: Now 'tis very notorious that he was not deposed before about the end of Iustinian's Eight and Thirtieth Year. Nicephorus Callisti and Cedrenus say, he was deposed on the Eight and Thirtieth. Victor Tun. on the Nine and Thirtieth of justinian: The truth is this, He was deposed two Months before the end of Iustinian's Eight and Thirtieth Year; for justinian began his Reign April 1. Indict. 5. and tho' his Predecessor justin Senator did not die till the First of August following, yet the Years of Iustinian's Reign were always computed from the time of his Inauguration, as the Chronicon Paschale observes. Now from April 1. Indict. 5. to Jan. 22. Indict. 13. on which Eutychius was deposed are Thirty Seven Years and near Eleven Months. From hence it follows, that he was not made Patriarch till the Six and Twentieth, or about the end of the Five and Twentieth Year of justinian. The most ancient Monument from whence we may gather any thing concerning the beginning of Eutychius' Patriarchate, is an Epistle of Pope Vigilius to him in answer to one of his, dated 
(d) VIII. Idus januarias anno justiniani 27. post Consulatum Basilii anno 12. apud Acta Consilii V. Collat. 1. p. 428. For 27. it ought to be read 26. For tho' the 27th. year of justinian is connected with the 12th. year after the Consulship of Basilius, yet since the years of justinian began in April, january in the 12 year after the Consulship of Basilius could not be in the 27th. but in the 26th. of justinian. It cannot be suspected that the Error lies in the number 12. and that it ought to be read 13. for january in the 13th. year after the Consulship of Basilius, was after the time of the Council.  jan. 6. in the Seven and Twentieth Year of justinian.  
A Third Objection alleged by Crakanthorp against the Life of Eutychius, is, that it is full of improbable Fables concerning Miracles wrought by Eutychius; but this is no Argument at all against the Genuineness of it; For Stories concerning Miracles are common to all the Writers of Lives, as well of that Age, as of the following Ages, tho' otherwise very good Authors, as Cyrillus Scythopolitanus, and others. The professed Historians themselves, such as Evagrius, Theodoret, and the like, are full of such Relations. 'Twas the natural result of a Superstitious Piety. I need not mention a Fourth Argument proposed by Crakanthorp; that he could not find the Life of Eutychius any where but in Surius, who he thinks ought not to be trusted. I only observe, that as it is generally received as genuine by the 
(a) Vita Eutychii Patriarchae apud Surium ab Eustathio ejus Discipulo eleganter conscripta. Vales. ad Evagr. l. 4. c. 38.  Learned, so it carries with it as clear and manifest Characters of Genuineness as any Life extant. Concerning the Author of it I have this to add, That he was the same with that Eustratius whom 
(b) Bibl. Cod. 171.  Photius entitles Presbyter of the Great Church (of Constantinople) and whose Treatise concerning the state of the Dead, he mentions; which Treatise is now extant, published by 
(c) Romae, 1655. 8o. p. 319. ad 581. Libro de Occidentalium atque Orientalium perpetua in dogmate Purgatorii Consensione.  L. Allatius. That he was the same, I gather from hence, that Eustratius the Presbyter, who wrote of the State of the Dead, not only discovers (as the Worthy and Learned Dr. 
(d) Hist. Lit.  Cave has observed) that he lived in the time of the Patriarch Eutychius, but expresses likewise a singular Affection and Veneration for him. 
(e) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  The geat Eutychius Archbishop of Constantinople, that Holy and by me ever-to-be honoured Person.   

CHAP. XI.  
S. Anastasius, Senior, Patriarch of Antioch, being deposed without any Synod by the Emperor Justin, junior, tho' he never resigned, yet his Successor Gregory is owned by all the Church. He continued Patriarch till his Death, for the space of 23 Years, the old Patriarch Anastasius being all the while living. Four Saints among those that lived at that time and communicated freely with him: S. simeon Stylites, junior, Pope Gregory the Great, S. Eulogius Patriarch of Alexandria, S. John Nesteutes Patriarch of Constantinople. Pope Gregory communicates with him as Patriarch of Antioch, tho' at the same time he declares Anastasius' Deprivation to be invalid, and looks upon Anastasius to be the rightful Patriarch. S. Anastasius, tho' deposed by the Lay-power, and tho' he had never given up his Right, yet never left the Communion of the Church.  
I Have mentioned in the foregoing Chapter that Anastasius, the Patriarch of Antioch, was deposed by the Emperor justin the Younger. It was done in the fifth Year of Iustin's Reign, in the Year of Christ 570. And that it was done barely by the Emperor's Authority, without any Synod, may easily be gathered from the account which Evagrius gives of it. 
(a) L. 5. c. 5.  justin (says he) turned Anastasius out of the See of Antioch, objecting against him that he had profusely squandered away the sacred Money upon things not necessary, and that he had likewise spoken reproachfully of him; that being asked why he was so profuse of the sacred Money, he answered downright, That therefore he had done it, that it might not be took away by Justin, that common Plague. Now it was said, that therefore Justin had a spite against Anastasius; because when he demanded a sum of Money of him, when promoted to the Bishopric, he refused to give it him. There were, besides the abovementioned, some other things objected against him, by some that were willing, as we may suppose, to gratify the Emperor in his design. The same may be gathered from the account we have in 
(b) Vide locum cap. praeced.  Theophanes. That he was thrust out of his See through the Emperor Justin 's displeasure, because he had spoken sharply against John, Patriarch of Constantinople, who had ordained John Patriarch of Alexandria, and likewise against John of Alexandria himself. Agreeably to this, 
(c) Vita Gregorii M. l. 4. c. 25.  johannes Diaconus tells us, that he was deposed Potestatibus: And Pope 
(d) Epist. l. 1. Ep. 25.  Gregory the Great intimates the same thing, when he says, he was made Patriarch by God, but deposed voluntate hominum.  
Tho' such were his Deprivation, and tho' (as will by and by appear) he never gave up his Right, and tho' he was a great and admired Bishop of that Age, so highly esteemed and revered by all the Bishops of the Catholic Church, as that when the Emperor justinian had sent about to all Bishops, and required 'em to subscribe to his new-fangled Heresy, they all unanimously replied, That they 
(a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Evag. l. 4 c. 39  would follow the Example of Anastasius of Antioch. Tho, I say, he was so great and admired a Person; yet,  
1. I observe, that there is not the least mention in any Author of any disturbance in the Church occasioned by his Deprivation.  
2. It is certain, that Gregory, Abbot of Mount Sinai, who succeeded him, continued Patriarch of Antioch no less than 23 or 24 Years; and that too, tho' Anastasius was all that while living; and was never deprived, but died possessed of the See. And after his Death Anastasius was again restored. Nicephorus, the Patriarch of Constantinople, assigns him 24 Years; 
(b) L. 6. c. 24.  Evagrius 23.  
3. It appears from Evagrius, that Gregory, who accepted of his See, was a Person of extraordinary Worth: And from thence it appears, That the greatest and the worthiest Men did not think it unlawful, or a disparagement, to accept of the See of a Bishop deposed by the Lay-power.  
4. It appears likewise from Evagrius, That he was not only received as Bishop of Antioch, but was highly beloved and honoured. Let us hear what Evagrius says. After Anastasius (says he) Gregory was preferred to the Episcopal Throne, 
(c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.  whose glory, according to the Poet, is spread far and near.— He was for Understanding and Virtue, and all Accomplishments, a very extraordinary Person, and in any thing he undertook, of an unconquerable Resolution, fearless and undaunted, and never yielding (in any ill or unreasonable thing) to the Supreme Powers. So liberal and magnificent he was, that as often as he came abroad, a vast number of Persons, besides his own proper Attendants, were wont to wait on him: And as soon as any perceived him, or heard that he was a coming, they immediately flocked in to attend him. And so highly was he honoured, that the 
(d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Honour which is usually paid to the Emperors themselves, was less than that which was paid to him. Evagrius adds much more in his praise, and tells us, That he was admired not only by the Christian, but likewise by the Persian Emperors, etc. He 
(e) L. 6. c. 11, 12, 13.  tells us likewise how by his great Authority he appeased a whole Army that mutinied against their Commanders. In his Speech to that Army, I am, says he, 
(f) C. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  by the Grace of God a Bishop, and have the power of binding and losing both in Heaven and in Earth. Evagrius adds, That he appeased God by Prayers and Supplications. This Action of the Patriarch Gregory is recorded likewise by another Historian of that Age, 
(a) Historiae Mauricianae, l. 3. c. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Theophylactus Simocattes: Philippicus (says he) was received by the Army, Gregory the then Archbishop of Antioch, having reconciled it to him.  
5. To this Patriarch our Historian Evagrius was himself Assessor or Chancellor. Tho' it appears by that great Character, which he gives the former Patriarch Anastasius, that he highly honoured and esteemed him; yet he readily acknowleges the present Possessor, and acts as 
(b) L. 6. c. 7. & 24.  Assessor or Chancellor under him as the true Patriarch. There was no one doubted of the lawfulness of it.  
6. He was likewise acknowleged by S. simeon Stylites, the latter of that name, as appears from Evagrius, who speaks of a 
(c) L. 6. c. 23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Prophecy which he uttered to the Patriarch Gregory, and of Gregory's 
(d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  going to give him a visit in his sickness, to take his leave of him before he died. How holy a Man this simeon Stylites was, we may read at large in Evagrius: He tells us, That 
(e) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  of all Men living in that Age, he was the most holy. And by both Churches he is to this day honoured as a Saint, by the 
(f) Martyrologium Rom.  Latin on the third, by the 
(g) Menologium Graec.  Greek on the first of September.  
7. That he was generally owned as Bishop of Antioch by the Bishops of the Catholic Church, is apparent from his being 
* An. 589.  tried as a Patriarch by a very great Council at Constantinople; a Council in which all the Eastern Patriarches were present, either in their own Persons or by their Representatives. The Case was this: There happened a great Difference between him and Asterius, the Comes Orientis, who usually resided at Antioch; and by the influence which the Comes had upon the People, they were mightily excited against their Patriarch; to that degree that they maliciously accused him for lying with his own Sister, another man's Wife, and as a Disturber of the Peace and Quiet of the City. He appealed to the Emperor and a Council, which accordingly was called at Constantinople, where he made his Appearance, and was acquitted, and his Accuser was publicly whipped and banished. That this Council was a very great and a General Council, is attested by Evagrius, who was there present, as the Patriarch's Counsel and Advocate. He says, 
(a) L. 6. c. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. . That all the Patriarches were there present at the Trial, either in their own Persons, or by their Legates, together with a great many Metropolitans and the Senators of Constantinople. When he says that all the Patriarches were there, he means the Oriental Patriarches. For there is extant in Isidorus Mercator, an Epistle from Pope Pelagius II. to the Bishops of that Council; from which it may be gathered, That the Pope had no Legate there, for he seems very angry, that john Nesteutes, the then Patriarch of Constantinople, who had called the Council by his own Authority, and had usurped the Title of Universal Bishop, should pretend to do so; and he declares, That the Summons being unlawful and derogatory to the Power of the See of Rome, whatsoever was done in that Council should be null, and of no force. And tho' it be certain that this Epistle is spurious, and Labbée himself confesses it; yet 'tis likewise apparent from the express words of Pope 
(b) Lib. 4. Indict. 13. Ep. 36. ad Euloginm, etc.  Gregory the Great, that Pope Pelagius II. did not approve of the Synod. And that he had no Representative in it, may be collected from Pope Gregory's Words; for he says, 
(c) Ibid. Ante hos annos 8. s. m. decessoris mei Pelagii tempore, frater & coepiscopus noster Ioannes in Constantinopolitanâ urbe ex causâ aliâ occasionem quaerens Synodum fecit, in quâ se. Vniversalem appellare conatus est. Quod mox idem decessòr meus ut agnovit, directis literis ex auctoritate S. Petri Apostoli ejusdem Synodi acta cassavit. Quarum, utz. Epistolarum sanctitati vestrae exemplaria studui destinare. Diaconum verò qui juxta morem pro responsis Ecclesi●e faciendis piiss●norum Dominorum vestigiis adb●ercbat, cum praefato consacerdote nostro missarum solennia celebrare prohibuit.  That, the Patriarch of Constantinople having in that Synod endeavoured to usurp the Title of Universal, Pope Pelagius, as soon as he heard of it, sent (not to any Legate or Legates that he had sent to the Synod, but) to his Deacon, who, according to custom, resided at the Emperor's Court, as Apocrisiarius for the See of Rome, and commanded him not to communicate with the Patriarch. But nevertheless, it is certain, that Pope Pelagius himself, as well as the other Patriarches, acknowleged Gregory as Patriarch of Antioch. This appears from another Epistle of Pope Gregory the Great 
(d) L 7. Ep. 69. (aliis 70.) Cognoscat siquidem fraternitas vestra joannem quondam Constantinopolitanae Civitatis antistitem contra Deum, contra pacem Ecclesi●e, in omnium despectu & injuriâ Sacerdotum, modestiae ac mensurae suae terminos excessisse, & illicitè in Synodo superbum ac pestiferum aecumenicum, hoc est universalis sibe vocabulum usurpâsse. Quod beatae recordationis Pelagius decessor noster agnoscens, omnia gesta ejusdem Synodi, praeter illa quae illic de causâ venerandae memoriae Gregorii Episcopi Antiocheni sunt habita, validà omnino districtione cassavit. , in which he says, that Pope Pelagius did not declare all the Acts of the Synod of Constantinople void, but only that part which was concerning the Title of Universal, which the Patriarch of Constantinople had usurped; and that he ratified what had been decreed concerning Gregory the Patriarch of Antioch.  
8. It is likewise very notorious, that Pope Gregory the Great himself, who succeeded Pelagius, tho' the ejected Patriarch Anastasius was his 
(a) See the several Epistles which Pope Gregory wrote to Anastasius, full of Love and Affection. Lib. 1. Epist. 7. 25. Lib. 4. Ep. 37, etc.  dearly beloved Friend, and tho' he looked upon his Deprivation as absolutely invalid, and accounted him always the rightful Patriarch of Antioch, yet never separated from the Communion of his Successor Gregory, but communicated always with him. First, That Pope Gregory looked upon Anastasius to be the rightful Patriarch of Antioch, while Gregory was possessed of the See, and accounted his Deprivation invalid, is apparent, first, from the Titles which he always gives him, of Patriarch of Antioch 
(b) Epist. l. 1. Ep. 25. alibique. , Gregorius, Anastasio Patriarchae Antiocheno. 2. From his sending a 
(c) L. 1. Ep. 24.  Synodical Episle to him as well as to the rest of the Patriarches, when first he was made Pope. 3. From his express Words to that purpose, in an 
(d) Epist. 25. praecit. Pr●terea sicuti Patriarchis aliis vel fratribus, ita & Synodicam vobis Epistolam direxi, quia apud me se●per hoc estis, quod ex omnipotentis Dei munere accepis●ts esse, non quod ex voluntate hominum putamini non esse. Jo. Diaconus in Vitâ Gregorii M. l. 4. c. 25. Ab adversis potestatibus praegravatos fortissimus mi● les Christi Gregorius viriliter defendebat, injustéque dejecto; non solum inter depositos non habebat, verum etiam pristinis gradibus auctoritatis suae privilegio reformabat. Nam Anastasium Patriarcham Antiochenum qui joannem Constantinopolitanum Praesulem voce liberâ reprehendens, Imperatoris justini juss● detrusus in exilium, ab ipsis Ioannis Papae tomporibus, usque ad sui Pontificatûs tempora permanebat, mox ut summum Sacerdotium meruit, inter Patriarchas eum reputans, scriptis talibus animavit. Praeterea (inquit) sicut Patriarchis aliis paribus vestris, Synodicam vobis Epistolam direxl, etc.  Epistle which he wrote him, together with the Synodical one: In which he tells him, That he had sent a Synodical Epistle to him, as well as to the other Patriarches, as looking upon him to be still a Patriarch as well as heretofore; to be still what God Almighty had made him, not, what he was commonly accounted, deposed. Secondly, That notwithstanding all this, tho' such was his Opinion concerning the Nullity of Anastasius' Deprivation, yet that he likewise communicated with Gregory, Anastasius' Successor, and acknowleged him as Bishop of Antioch, is apparent from the Title of his Synodical Epistle: For from that it is manifest, that the Epistle was sent to Gregory, as well as to Anastasius, and the rest of the Patriarches. The Title is this: Gregorius joanni Episcopo Constantinopolitano, Eulogio Alexandrino, Gregorio Antiocheno, joanni Hierosolymitano, & Anastasio Patriarchae Antiocheno à paribus. Tho' in order the Patriarch of Antioch was always mentioned before the Patriarch of jerusalem, as Gregory is here placed; yet Anastasius he places below the Patriarch of jerusalem, because he was a Patriarch of Antioch de jure only, not in possession. In another 
(a) Ad Joannem Constantinopolitanum l. 2. Indict. 13. Ep. 38. Et quidem hac de re (de nomine universalis Episcopi ab eo arroga●o) sanct●e memoriae decessoris mei Pelagii gravia ad sanctitatem vestram scripta transinissa sunt. In quibus Synodi quae apud vos de Fratris quondam & Consacerdotis nostri causâ congregata est propter nefandum elation●s vocabulum acta dissolvit.  Epistle the Pope calls the Patriarch Gregory, then deceased, his late Brother and Co-bishop: And in another 
(b) L. 7. Ep. 69. (aliis 70.) Quae Eusebio Thessalonicensi aliisque compluribus Episcopis directa est. Locum integrum vide superius productum.  again, he calls him venerandae memoriae Gregorium Episcopum Antiochenum. This Example of Pope Gregory his owning both Gregory and Anastasius at the same time, Non satis advertere videntur (says the learned Annotator on his Epistles 
(c) L. 1. Ep. 25.  in the last Paris Edition) qui ad summos juris apices de re qualibet decernentes, SCHISMATIBUS & contentionibus viam parant zelo PRAECIPITI NEC SATIS CAUTO. 'Tis worthy our Observation, that among those who communicated with, and acknowleged Gregory as Patriarch of Antioch, there were no less than four, who are honoured by the Church as Saints. 1. simeon Stylites. 2. Pope Gregory the Great. 3. Eulogius Patriarch of Alexandria, who was one of those Patriarches that acquitted our Patriarch Gregory in the abovementioned Synod of Constantinople. These three are honoured and worshipped as Saints by both Churches, both the Greek and the Latin. Of S. simeon Stylites I have spoken already: Of 
(d) Of him S. Ildefonsus de vir. illustr. c. 2. speaks thus: Ita cunctorum meritorum claruit perfectione sublimis, ut exclusis omnium virorum illustrium comparationibus, nihil illi simile demonstraret antiquitas: vicit enim sanctitate Antonium, eloquentiâ Cyprianum, sapientiâ Augustinum, etc.  S. Gregory the Great, there is no need I should say any thing, he being so generally known. Of Eulogius it is to be observed, That as he was a very 
(e) De eo vide inter alios Moschi Pratum Spirit. c. 117,118,119. (aliis 146, 147, 148.)  holy Man and a Saint in the Church's Calendar, so he was likewise a very learned Man, a zealous Defender of the Orthodox Faith, and a great Opposer of Heretics, as his several learned Treatises, which 
(f) Biblioth. Codd. 208, 225, 226, 227, 230, 280. Cod. 230. p. 885. Photius mentions a Synod called by Eulogius in the 7th. Year of the Emperor Marcianus: lest any one should be led into an error by that place, and fancy that Eulogius was not the same with him of whom we speak, because the Emperor Marcianus was long before these times, I must here acquaint my Reader, that instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he ought to read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Photius has given us a large account of, abundantly testify. The fourth Saint is the Patriarch of Constantinople, john Nesteutes, who is worshipped as a Saint by the Greek Church, and had doubtless been worshipped in the same manner by the Latins, if his styling himself Universal Bishop had not excited the Church of Rome against him, which could never endure that any Bishop should pretend to be equal to the Pope of Rome. This great Man was so far from being likely to comply for fear with what he thought unlawful, that there was not a Man in that Age more mortified to the World than he was. When he was first made Patriarch, it was utterly against his Will, as we may learn from the Epistles of Pope Gregory the Great. He was so given to Mortification and Fasting, that from thence he had his Surname 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. He always went in a very mean Habit; and was so far from being desirous of Riches, that when he died he left behind him nothing but a wooden Bed, on which he was wont to lie, a woollen Coverlet of no value, with a poor plain Cloak. This account 
(a) Hist. l. 7. c. 6.  Theophylactus Simocattes, a Writer of that Age, gives of him. Who adds, That after his Death the Emperor Mauricius took this Bed, Coverlet, and Cloak of his, and kept 'em as precious Relics, preferring 'em before things of the greatest value; and was wont in the Lent-time, instead of his own rich Bed, to make use only of that, as believing that that would convey to him Divine Grace. This Patriarch (says the same 
(b) Proaemio p. 36. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.  Author) was a Person endowed with the highest Degree of Divine Knowledge, and advanced to the very height of Virtue, etc.  
Sophronius, 
(c) Epist. Synodicâ ap. Phot. Bibl. Cod. 231. p. 890.  Patriarch of jerusalem, mentions one john, Patriarch of Constantinople, Sir-named Cappadox, from the Country where he was born, whom he calls 
(d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  the Habitation of Virtue: Some think him to be the same with our john Nesteutes, but in that, I think, they are mistaken; for john Nesteutes was never Surnamed Cappadox. He of whom Sophronius speaks, was the Successor of Timotheus, and the Predecessor of Epiphanius, Patriarches of Constantinople; yet the great Elogium that he gives him, makes nevertheless for our Cause. For 'twas he that communicated with john, Patriarch of jerusalem, who was put into the place of Elias, unjustly deposed by the Emperor Anastasius; and who himself had been 
(c) Niceph. Patr. in Chronolog.  Syncellus (which before I had forgot to mention) to Timotheus Patriarch of Constantinople, who was put into the place of Macedonius unjustly deposed by the same Emperor.  
See Page 134. and add that Paragraph here.   

CHAP. XII.  
S. Martin, Pope of Rome, being deposed without any Synod, and banished by the Heretical Emperor Constans, tho' he never resigned, yet Eugenius is chosen his Successor by the Clergy of Rome, tho' at the same time they were zealous Asserters of the Orthodox Faith, and had likewise a great love for S. Martin. Eugenius is received and owned by all as a true Pope, and has been honoured all along by the Church as a Saint. S. Martin himself owns him as a true Pope, and prays to God for him as such.  
IN the Year 642, Pyrrhus, the Monothelite, Patriarch of Constantinople, is said to have been deposed by the Senate and People of Constantinople, being suspected to have poisoned the Emperor Constantine, the Son of Heraclius, and 
(a) Not Peter, as 'tis said in the Synodicon, Syn. 131. He succeeded Pyrrhus after he was again restored.  Paul, (himself likewise a Monothelite,) being ordained in his stead, was received as a true Patriarch by all the Monothelites: But tho' it is generally said, that the Patriarch Pyrrhus was deposed, yet I find upon strict enquiry, that he was not actually deposed; but that being sure that he should be deposed, to avoid greater Mischiefs, he himself resigned his Dignity. This Instance therefore I pass by.  
In the Year 654, S. Martin, Pope of Rome, was violently deposed by the Emperor 
(b) Not Constantinus Pogonatus, as the Synodicon c. 132. calls him.  Constans: His Crime no other, but that by a Synod called at Rome, he had asserted the Orthodox Faith, and had condemned the Heresy of the Monothelites, whose Cause the Emperor had espoused: But that which they alleged against him, was, That he had entered into a Confederacy with the Saracens, and others of the Emperor's Enemies, and had spoken somewhat (I know not what) to the dishonour of the Virgin Mary. That there was no Synod concerned in the Matter, is very notorious. Let us hear what he himself says of the Circumstances of his Expulsion, in his Epistle to Theodorus Spudeus, who had sent to him, then at Constantinople, about it. He tells Theodorus 
(c) Noscere voluit cara vestra dilectio qualiter de Sede S. Petri Apostolic raptus fuerim— Omnia praescivi per totum tem●u●, quae meditabantur, & sumpto meipso cum omni Cleno, privatim mansi in Ecclesià— quae cognominatur Constantiniana— Illis enim omnes nos seorsum morabamur à die Sabbati, quando Calliopas cum Ravennati exercitu, & Theodoro Cubiculario, introicit civitatem.— Ego verò ipse graviter insi●mus eram ab Octobrio mense usque ad praedictum tempus, id est usque ad sextodecimò Kalendas julias'— Ego itaqueante altare Ecclesiae lectulum meum habebam, in quo jacebam, & nondum transacta media hora, ecce exercitus cum eis veniens in Ecclesiam obumbrati omnes tenentes lanceas & spathas suas, quin & arcus suos paratos unà cum scutis suis, & facta sunt illic quae nec dicenda sunt.— Quibus confestim introeuntibus, jussio à Calliopa porrecta est Presbyteris & Diaconis, in quâ humilitatis meae abjectio continebatur, quod irregulariter & sine lege Episcopatum surripuissem, & non essem in Apostolicâ Sede dignus institui, sed omnimodis in hanc regiam urbem (Constantinopolim) transinitti, subrogato in loco meo Episcopo, quod necdum aliquando factum est, & spero quod necdum aliquando fieri habet: quia in absentiâ Pontificis Archidiaconus & Archipresbyter, & Primicerius locum praesentant Pontificis.— Eâdem itaque horâ dedi meipsum ad exhibendum Imperatori, & non resistendum. Porro acclamantibus mihi (ut veritatem dicam) quibusdam ex clero ne facerem hoc, nulli eorum accommodavi aurem, ne subitò sierent homicidia. Sed dixi illis: Sinite mecum venire ex Clero, qui necessarii mihi sunt, Episcopos, viz. Presbyteros, & Diaconos, & absolutè qui mihi videntur. Respondit Calliopas: Quotquot voluerint venire cum bono veniant. Nos cuiquam necessitatem non facimus. Respondi ego: Clerus in potestate meâ est. Exclamantes autem quidam ex Sacerdotibus dicebant: Cum ipso vivimus & cum ipso morimur. Post haec coepit dicere per se Calliopas, & qui cum ipso erant: Vent nobiscum ad Palatium. Nec hoc facere recusavi, sed exivi cum eyes in Palatium câdem secundâ feriâ, & tertia feriâ venit ad me omnis Clerus, & multi erant qui se pa●àverant ad navigandum mecum.— Eadem ergo nocte, quae illucescit in feriâ quartâ, quae erat tertiodecimò Kal. julias', circa horam quasi sextam noctis, tulerunt me de Palatio, retrusis omnibus qui mecum in Palatio erant.— Et non nisi cum sex puerulis & uno cauculo eduxerunt nos ex urbe.— Et pervenimus Kal. julias' Mesenam, in quâ erat navis, id est, carcer meus, etc. , That Calliopas, the Hexarch of Ravenna, came to Rome with his Army, and, together with his Soldiers, entered into the Church where he himself lay sick before the Altar, and there delivered to the Clergy, the Presbyters and the Deacons, the Emperor's Command, by which he was declared unworthy to govern any longer, and they were required to elect a new Bishop in his stead. Then they took him by violence, and carried him away privately to a Ship, and so, after some time, to Constantinople. What happened to him at Constantinople, and what became of him afterwards, we learn from an Anonymous Author, who was at the same time at Constantinople, and sent a particular account of all things to Rome, whose Epistle is in the Tomes of the Councils falsely ascribed to Anastasius Bibliothecarius, who was only the Translator. He tells us, that S. Martin was there tried by a Court of Judicature, consisting of Senators, of which one Troilus, the Sacellarius (a great Officer 
(a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Dignitas Palatina, qui sacelli seu sisci Imperatorii curam habebat. See Du Fresne's Gloss. Graec. & Lat. Med. There was likewise an Ecclesiastical Dignitary so called, but the other is here meant. Neither was the Ecclesiastical Sacellarius ever a Bishop. In the Collatio S. Maximi Mart. cum Principibus in Secretario, the same Treilus is called Troilus Patricius. So in the Collatio S Maxim cum Theodosio Episc. Caesareae, p. Edir. Sirmond. 180. Epiphanius & Troilus Patricii. Again, p. 187. Dixerant autem & Patricii, Troilus, viz. & Epiphanius.  of the Emperor's Court) was Precedent 
(b) In ipsâ verò 93 â. die (post adventum ejus ad Vrbem) quae est dies Parasceve, mane tulerunt cum de custodiâ, constituendum in cellâ S●cellarii, jubentes pridie convenire omnem SENATUM, quod & factum est. jusserunt autem eum introducendum, & introduxerunt in portatoriâ sellâ: Erat enim penitùs aeger— Intendent autem in eum primus, qui praesidebat Sacellarius cum RELIQVIS PRINCIPIBUS à long, jussit cum surgere a ferculo & stare.— Videns ergo justus Vir introountes eos & jurantes sino parcirate testificatores, compassus perditioni animarum eorum, ai● ad eos qui praesidebant PRINCIPES: Obsecro vos per Deum, nolite praepararo eos jurare, sed absque sacramento dicant quaecunque volunt, uósque facite quaecunque vultis.— Denuo inter accusantes testes, ait ad cum PRAEFECTUS Troilus.— ad quem continuò dixit ipse beatus Apostolicus Papa, Dic DOMINE Troile— Surgens Sacellarius cum plurimis qui considerant ei, ingressus est nunciare Imperatori quaeque ipse voluit. Eduxerunt autem S. Apostolicum virum de cellà judicii, magis autem ex Aulâ Caiaphae, in gestario sedili sedentem, & statuerunt cum in medio atrii, quod erat ante cellam Sacellarii, & Imperialis Stabuli, quò consueverat omnis populus convenire, & expectare Sacellarii ingressum.— Statuerunt ergo reverendissimum virum in medio solarii dispositionis, praesentiâ totius SENATVS subnixum hinc & inde. Facta est ergo constipatio subitò non minima, & exiens ab Imperatore Sacellarius apertis januis triclinii in solarium, dividere universum populum jussit. Veniénsque ad sanctum ac venerabilem virum Martinum Apostolicum, dixit ad eum: Vide quomodo Deus te duxit, & tradidit in manus nostras. Tu nitebaris contra Imperatorem, quid tibi spei erat? Ecce dereliquisti Deum, & dereliquit te Deus. Et continuò exolamans Sacellarius quendam astantium excubitorum tonsorem, praecepit sine morâ auferre psachnion summi & Apostolici atque praecipui Pastoris omnium Christianorum.— Cum ergò incidisset psachnion beati viri excubitor, & corrigiam campagiorum ejus, statim tradidit eum Sacellarius Praefecto Vrbis, dicens: Tolle eum, Domine Praefecte, & continuò membratim incide illum. Cum his autem omnibus jussit astantibus anathematizare eum, quod & fecerunt. Non responderunt autem hujuscemodi voci viginti virorum anime. Sed omnes quique hoc ipsum videbant, & sciebant quia est Deus in coelo conspector corum quae fiebant, dimisso vultu cum multa maestitudine recedebant tribulati, etc.  By which he was condemned to die, for conspiring (as was proved by false Witnesses) against the Government. But afterwards by the Intercession of Paul, Patriarch of Constantinople, who, tho' his Adversary and a Monothelite, could not but pity him for the extremely barbarous Usage which he met with after his Condemnation, his Life was spared. And he was banished to Cherso, a Town upon the Lake Meotis; where he died. The same account we have in his Life, which is extant in Surius: But that Life was compiled out of this Anonymous Epistle, and out of the Popes own Epistles, and the Pontifical; not composed by a Writer, who lived at that time, as Surius imagined. Those words, from whence Surius gathered, that the Author lived at that time, were injudiciously transcribed by the Compiler out of this Anonymous Author.  
Tho' such were the Circumstances of S. Martin's Deprivation; tho' he was deposed by the Lay-power; and not only so, but likewise by such as were Heretics; tho' he was so much beloved by his Clergy, as that, when he was seized by the Hexarch Calliopas, some of 'em advised him to make opposition, and others cried out that they would live and die with him; tho', besides all this, it is certain that he never resigned, nor gave his consent that the Clergy should choose another in his room; which appears as well from the particular account which he himself gives of his being seized and carried away, as from those words in his Epistle, which he wrote at least a Year and four Months after he was carried away from Rome, where he mentions that the Emperor had commanded him to be carried to Constantinople, and the Clergy to choose a new Pope: Quod necdum aliquando factum est, & spero quod necdum aliquando fieri habet: quia in absentià Pontificis Archidiaconus & Archipresbyter, & Primicerius locum praesentant Pontificis: Notwithstanding all this, as soon as they understood that he was not acquitted at Constantinople, but condemned, and of consequence not like to return again to his See, they chose another in his place, viz. Eugenius. As for that which Baronius, and his faithful Echo, Binius, would needs persuade the World, That Eugenius was not chosen as a new Pope, but only as S. Martin's Vicar; That their design was, that, tho' he acted as Pope, yet he should not be truly so till after S. Martin's Death, is a trifling Evasion, not grounded in the least on any Authority: And I need not mention that S. Martin himself speaks of him as of his Successor, not his Vicar.  
How long Pope Eugenius governed before S. Martin's Death, may be gathered from S. Martin's Epistle, but now cited, and from the Anonymous Author. That he was not made Pope, when first the Clergy were commanded to choose a new one; that is, when S. Martin was carried away from Rome, but after his arrival at Constantinople, is plain from S. Martin's Words, which I just now produced; and likewise from an Epistle which he wrote to Constantinople from Cherso, four Months after his arrival there, and at least two Years and three Months after he was carried from Rome: In which he speaks of his Successor, as if he had but very lately heard the news of his being ordained in his room; Pastorem, qui eis nunc praesse MONSTRATUR. It appears from that particular account which P. Martin gives in his Epistle, that he was carried away from Rome the 19th. Day of june, and that he did not arrive at Constantinople till about a Year and three Months after that. We are assured by the Anonymous Author, that he arrived at Constantinople the 17th. of September; That the 93d. Day after his Arrival he was tried and condemned; That 85 Days after his Condemnation he was sent away towards Cherso, and that he died the 16th. of September, Indict. 14. 
(a) Baronius' Chronology is in this part, as in many others, very lame. He makes S. Martin to be carried away from Rome in the Year 651, to be banished to Cherso (and Eugenius to succeed him) in the Year 652, to die in the Year 654. All which is false. Theophanes makes S. Martin to live in banishment till the 2d. Indict. 659, three Years too long.  i. e. in the Year 656. Whether the September, on which he died, were the next after his arrival at Cherso, we cannot for certain determine. There is extant in the Anonymous Author an Epistle which he wrote from Cherso to a Friend at Constantinople, on the Month of September: But however it is probable, that he died on that same September, a few days after he had written that Epistle. And my Reason is, Because the Anonymous Author, who produces two Epistles, which he wrote from Cherso, within about four Months after his arrival there, says nothing more of him, but only concerning his Death. Had he lived a Year longer, it is very likely that his Friends at Constantinople would have heard again from him, and our Author would have had more to write concerning him. And that he died very soon after his arrival, appears yet more probable from his weak and sickly condition, and from the great Complaints which he makes concerning his misery and the want of subsistence at Cherso. From these Considerations I infer, That he was carried away from Rome the 19th. of june, 654, and lived after that two Years and three Months; That he was tried and condemned at Constantinople the 18th. of Decemb. 655. And from hence it follows, that Eugenius was chosen Pope about the Month of january 656, 
(a) The Pontifical says Eugenius was Pope two Years and eight Months; it therefore follows, That he died about the end of the first Indiction, 653: And this agrees well enough with the beginning of Pope Vitalianus, for his first Epistles are dated (the Date of one of 'em is false, and the business about which he writes, was transacted) after the beginning of the ad. Indiction. The Pontifical adds, that he was buried on the 4th. of june: He was therefore Pope not two Years and eight Months, but two Years and about five Months.  about eight Months before S. Martin's Death, allowing about three Weeks or a Month for the carrying of the News of S. Martin's Condemnation from Constantinople to Rome. If that may be relied on which the Author of the Pontifical says concerning a Vacancy of 28 Days, it would then follow that Eugenius was made Pope the 16th. of january: But on that we cannot rely, not only because the words, Cessavit Episcopatus dies 28, are wanting in some Copics; but because that Author (as I have already observed) is wont to be very exact in assigning the Duration of Vacancies, when we know he knew nothing of the matter. What he says concerning the time of S. Martin's Deprivation, that he was deposed 
(b) Depositus die 16. mensis Sept. & cessavit Episcopatus dies 28.  on the 16th. of September, is an error, occasioned by his having heard that he died on that Day.  
Eugenius being constituted Pope, as he had been freely Elected by the Clergy, so he was readily owned and acknowleged 
(c) Fait Eugenius (says the Pontifical) benignus, mitis, mansuetus, omnibus affabilis, & sanctitate praeclarior. Rogam Clero solitam tribuit, & indigentibus elcemosynam ministravit.— Hujus temporibus Petrus Patriarcha Constantinopolitanus direxit Synodicam Epistolam ad Sedem Apostolicam juxta consuetudinem priorum (Pyrrhi & Pauli) & ultra regulam, non autem declarans Operationes aut voluntates in Domino nostro in jesus Christo. Et accensus Populus, vel Clerus, eò quod talem Synodicam direxisset, minimè susceperunt eam, sed cum majore strepitu est à sanctâ Dei Ecclesiâ projecta: Ut etiam nec eundem Papam dimitteret Populus vel Clerus missas celebrare in basilicâ sanctae Dei Genitricis, sempérque Virginis Mariae, quae appellatur ad praesepe, nisi promisisset his ipse Pontifex, minimè eam aliquando suscipere.  by the People of Rome as a true Pope; and that too, tho' the People of Rome were at that time exceedingly zealous for all Orthodox Doctrines. When Peter, the Monothelite, Patriarch of Constantinople, had sent to Rome his Synodical Letters (this happened while S. Martin 
(d) Paul, Patriarch of Constantinople, died a little after S. Martin's Condemnation, as appears from the Anonymous Account: To him succeeded Pyrrhus, who lived not full five Months, and died the Whitsuntide before S. Martin; then Peter presently succeeded. Nicephorus Callisti in Catal. Manuscripto. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.  was yet living) in which the Doctrine of the Monothelites was passed by in silence, and not condemned, the whole Church utterly rejected 'em, and would not suffer their Pope Eugenius to officiate at Divine Service, till he had promised, that he would never receive 'em. Tho' so stout Asserters of Orthodoxy in opposition to the Emperor himself; yet they never scrupled to submit to a Bishop, who was put into the place of another unjustly deposed by the Lay-power, and still living, at least for aught they knew.  
That Pope Eugenius was acknowledged by the Bishops of the Roman District, is apparent, as from the thing itself; so likewise from hence, That tho' he governed in all but a very little while, not above two Years and eight Months, yet there were 21 or 22 Bishops ordained by him; as we are assured by the Author of the Pontifical. Neither is there mention in any Author of any the least Disturbance in the Church on his account.  
He was not only owned as a true Pope, but was likewise after his Death honoured by the Church as a Saint; and so he has been all along to this day. By the Author of the Pontifical he is said to be sanctitate praeclarior; and in the 
(a) Ad 2. junii.  Roman Martyrology we read: Romae sancti Eugenii Papae & Confessoris. A Saint is deposed, and a Saint accepts of his place!  
It is here to be observed, that many of the Greek Writers, who were not well acquainted with the Affairs of the Latins, make not Eugenius, but Pope Agatho to succeed S. Martin; tho' not only Eugenius, but Vitalianus likewise, and Adeodatus came in between S. Martin and Agatho: But 'tis likewise to be observed, that tho' they knew that P. Martin was unjustly deposed, yet they speak of P. Agatho, whom they took to be his Successor, as of a true Pope and an excellent Man, S. Martin, says 
(b) Chron. p. 276. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.  Theophanes, being banished, Agatho is ordained Pope of Rome; who being moved with zeal towards God, called a holy Synod, and condemned the Heresy of the Monothelites. The Author of the Synodicon: 
(c) Syn. 132,133. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Isaac Catholicus Invect. 1. in Armen. ad finem: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. It is scarce to be doubted but that he likewise took Agatho to be S. Martin's immediate Successor.  Martin, the most holy Pope of Rome, was banished to Cherso.— Agatho, the most blessed Pope of Rome, who was advanced to Martin 's Throne, gathered a holy Synod, etc.  
In the last place I add, That S. Martin himself was so far from abhorring the Communion of his Successor Eugenius, that he owns him as a true Pope, and prays for him. May God (says that good Man in his last Epistle which he wrote from 
(d) Veruntamen Deus, qui omnes vult salvos fieri, & ad agnitionem veritatis venire, per intercessiones S. Petri stabiliat corda corum in orthodoxâ fide, & confirmet contra omnem haereticum & adversarium Ecclesiae nostrae personam, & immobiles custodiat, praecipue Pastorem qui eis nunc praeesse monstratur.  Cherso) who wills that all Men should be saved, and come to the knowledge of the Truth, establish the hearts of the People of Rome in the Orthodox Faith, through the Intercessions of S. Peter, and confirm 'em against all Heretics and Adversaries of the Church, and make 'em immovable, especially the Pastor, who (I hear) presides now over 'em.  
It appears from what has been observed concerning P. Gregory his looking upon Anastasius to be still the rightful Patriarch of Antioch, his giving him the Title of Patriarch; and his sending him his Synodical Letters, That Anastasius, after his Expulsion, had never given up his Right or resigned. And yet it appears, that Anastasius, the great Anastasius, he to whom all the Bishops of the East paid so great a Deference, never separated from the Communion of the Church, but continued to communicate peaceably with it. This appears from an 
(a) L. 1. Ep. 27. Praeterea indico suggestionem me apud piissimos. Dominos summis precibus plenam fecisse, ut virum beatissimum Dominum Anastasium Patriarcham concesso usu pallii ad B. Petri Apostolorum principis limina ●necum celebraturum solennia missarum transmittere debuisset, quatenus si ei ad sedem suam minimè reverti liceret, saltem mecum in honore suo viveret. Sed quae causa contigerit ut eadem scripta retinerem, praesentium lator vobis innotescet. Ejusdem tamen Domini Anastasii animum cognoscite, & quicquid ei de hac re placuerit, vestris mihi Epistolis indicate.  Epistle of P. Gregory, to Sebastian, Bishop of Risinum; in which the Pope says, That he had written a Petition to the Emperor (Mauricius) to desire that Anastasius, if he might not be restored to his See, yet at least might be permitted to come to Rome, and officiate there with him as a Bishop. The same he says in an 
(b) Ep. 7. Praeterea indico quia à serenissimis Dominis quantis valui precibus postulavi: Ut vos honore restituto (intellige usum pallii, non Sedem) ad S. Petri Apostolorum principis limina venire, & quousque ita Deo placuerit, hic mecum vivere concedant: Quatenus dum vos videre aneruero, peregrinationis nostrae taedium de. aternâ patriâ invicem loquendo releucinus.  Epistle to Anastasius himself.  
This Paragraph should have been placed at the End of the Eleventh Chapter, at Page 127.   

CHAP. XIII.  
Callinicus Patriarch of Constantinople being deposed without any Synod by the Emperor Justinianus Rhinotmetus, his Successor Cyrus is received as a true Patriarch. §. 1. So likewise is Nicetas who was put into the place of the Patriarch Constantine deposed without any Synod by the Emperor Constantinus Copronymus. §. 2.  
THE Emperor justinian Surnamed Rhinotmetus, having commanded the General of his Army to slaughter the People of Constantinople, and to begin with the Patriarch Callinicus, the Patriarch was advised by Leontius, and other great Men, to endeavour to have the Emperor deposed, and to excite the people against him by crying out: This is the day which the Lord hath made. He accordingly did so, and the people accordingly took the Emperor and cut off his Nose, and banished him to Cherso, and made Leontius Emperor. After three Years Leontius was deposed by Apsimarus, and he, after Seven Years, was deposed by the ejected Emperor justinian. justinian being restored (this happened in the Year 703.) commanded Leontius and Apsimarus to be put to death, and the Patriarch 
(a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Theophil. p. 313.  Callinicus he deprived of his Sight and banished him to Rome, and made one Cyrus a Recluse of Amastris, who had foretold of his being to be restored, Patriarch in his stead. So Theophanes. Glycas thus: Justinian put Apsimarus, together with Leontius to Death; 
(b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  and Callinicus the Patriarch, because he had opposed him in some Designs of his against the Church, he deprived of his Sight, and banished him to Rome, and promoted Cyrus (in the Greek Cyriacus) a Recluse of Amastris, in his stead; because he had prophesied to him of his Restauration. That Callinicus was deposed and banished without any Synod, may be easily gathered from the thing itself. For doubtless the enraged and revengeful Emperor dealt with him as he did with the rest, and did what he did in a Fury. In a word (adds Glycas 
(c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. , just after the words produced) he murdered all like so many Sheep, for he was all in a fury. That he was deposed and banished by the Emperor, is asserted likewise by Zonaras, Cedrenus, Nicephorus 
(a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.  the Patriarch, joel and Constantinus Manasses; who tells us, that before he was deprived of his Sight and banished 
(b) Hist. Breviario, p. 28. , he was exposed to the Boys as a laughingstock, to be abused by them.  
Callinicus being thus deposed and banished, the new Patriarch Cyrus was readily owned as a true Patriarch by all. Concerning any disturbance in the Church occasioned by Callinicus' Lay-Deprivation, not a single word in any Author. This Instance the Author of the Baroccian Treatise takes notice of, who observes, not only that Cyrus was received by the Church, but likewise that Callinicus never separated from the Church's, and Cyrus' Communion; by which he means, That there was not any Schism headed by Callinicus as an Antipatriarch. And the silence of all Authors in general, does sufficiently confirm what he says. The Emperor Justinian (says he) Surnamed Rhinotmetus, coming the second time to the Throne, deposed and banished unjustly the most holy Patriarch Callinicus and placed Cyrus a Recluse of Amastris in the See. Now observe, That Callinicus did not separate himself from the Church and from Cyrus, upon the account of his unjust Deprivation; and that Cyrus, together with those he had ordained, were received by the Church. 'Tis a vain thing for our Adversaries to allege, that therefore, probably Callinicus did not think fit to insist upon his Right, because, by being guilty of Treason he had forfeited his Life: For whether Callinicus did insist upon his Right or not, the Church did not care. As soon as he was banished, and Cyrus was constituted in his place, they immediately submitted to the present Possessor. Who can ever believe, that the Church of Constantinople sent to Rome, to know what the old Patriarch's Pleasure was?  

(c) Theophanes, Nicephorus Patr. Nicephorus Callisti Catal. MS.  Six years the Patriarch Cyrus enjoyed the Dignity. After that time, there being another Revolution in the State, justinian being killed and Philippicus advanced to the Imperial Throne, he was deposed by the new Emperor. What the reason was is not said; but that we may easily guests at. The Emperor Philippicus as soon as he came to the Throne, called an Heretical Synod, and condemned the Sixth General Council, and preferred one john a 
(d) Zonaras. Annal. l. 14. c. 26. Theophanes, p. 319, 320. Nota Marginalis MS. ad Nicephori Cal. Catalogum MS.  Monothelite to the Patriarchal Chair: It is therefore likely, that the Patriarch Cyrus was therefore deposed because he refused to comply with the Emperor in that Design. The Patriarch 
(e) Hist. Brev. p. 31.  Nicephorus intimates, that Cyrus was turned out and john made Patriarch before the meeting of that Synod.  
§. 2. After john succeeded Germanus, who was forced by the Emperor Leo Isaurus to resign his Bishopric, because he refused to condemn the Worship of Images. After this time the Church of Constantinople were for many years' Iconoclasts, to the Church of Rome Heretics, to us Orthodox. Anastasius succeeded Germanus, and after his death Constantine was advanced to the Patriarchal Throne by the Emperor Constantius Copronymus. The Patriarch Constantine, after Twelve Years Government, viz. in the Year 766. was deposed by the same Emperor. The occasion and the manner is thus described by Theophanes, 
(a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  On the Thirtieth day of August (says he) the Fourth Indiction, the Emperor raged with a great fury against his Namesake the Patriarch, and having found out certain Monks, Clergymen, and Laics who were the Patriarch's intimate Friends, he got 'em to allege against him, that they had heard him speak against him to Podomagulus (or Podopagurus, a great Man, whom the Emperor had just before put to death as accused of conspiring against him) and sent 'em to the Patriarch's Palace, there to witness it to his Face; and the Patriarch denying it, he made 'em swear by the Holy Cross, that they had heard the Patriarch speak thus and thus reproachfully of him; and sent some to seal up the Gate of his Palace, and took him and banished him to Hieria, and after that to the Prince's Island. Theophanes 
(b) P. 370. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. etc.  adds, That on the Sixteenth of November following, the Emperor made Nicetas, an Eunuch, Patriarch in Constantine's room. He further adds, That on the 16 th' of 
(c) P. 371. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  October next after that, he sent for Constantine from the Prince's Island, and having so scourged him as that he was not able to stand, he commanded him to be carried into the Great Church, and all the People of the City being gathered together, there was a Libel read publicly, containing the Heads of all the Accusations that were brought against him; and at the reading of every Accusation, the Secretary, who read it, and stood by him, struck him on the Face; 
(d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.  the Patriarch Nicetas sitting there in his Throne by him, and seeing all that was done. Then they went up into the Pulpit, and the Patriarch Nicetas took the Libel, and commanded some Bishops to take away his Patriarchal Cope from him, and anathematised him. So giving him the nickname of Scotiopsis they made him go out of the Church backward. After this Relation Theophanes gives an account of his being put to death, and how very inhumanely and barbarously they used him. It appears from this exact and particular account, that Constantine was never Synodically tried and condemned, and that Nicetas was made Patriarch before he was condemned in the great Church; and that when he was there condemned and deposed or degraded, he was deposed or degraded by Nicetas himself, who had been put into his place. It likewise appears that he had never given up his Right, since he still wore his Patriarchal Cope, and was there deprived of it. Nicephorus the Patriarch 
(a) Hist Brev. p. 48. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.  gives the same account of the Matter, tho' not so particularly. The Emperor (says he) suborned some of the Patriarch Constantine 's Acquaintance to depose upon Oath, that they had heard him speak of the Conspiracy of Antiochus and Theophylactus. (They had been condemned together with Podopagurus.) And immediately sent him away as a banished Man to Hieria (an Imperial Palace in Asia over against Constantinople) and created Nicetas the Presbyter of the Church of the Apostles, an Eunuch, Patriarch. All these things were done in the Month of August Indict. 4. Not long after he sent for Constantine and commanded him to be carried to the Church; and together with him he sent one of his own Secretaries with Accusations against him, which the Secretary read before all the people there gathered together, striking him on the Cheek at the reading of every Accusation. And then they went up into the Pulpit and deposed him, the new Patriarch reading the Accusations at the Altar. To the same purpose 
(a) L. 15. p. 111.  Zonaras.  
Tho' such were the Circumstances of Nicetas' Promotion, yet of any disturbance in the Church occasioned by it, not a Syllable in any Author. He was readily owned by all the Orthodox, i. e. the Iconoclasts; and governed no less than Fourteen Years, as appears from Theophanes and Nicephorus 
(c) Catal. MS.  Callisti. The Patriarch Nicephorus in his Chronology allows him Fifteen Years. If you find him called by any Author a Pseudo-Patriarch, or the like; it is only by such, as, being themselves the Worshippers of Images, accounted him, (so likewise his Predecessor himself) a Heretic, and on that account no true Patriarch.   

CHAP. XIV.  
An Account of the Schism between Photius and Ignatius, Patriarches of Constantinople. Photius who was put into Ignatius' place when deposed by the Emperor, no such Person as his Enemies report him. By how great a Party he was received. The reason why some refused to acknowledge him was not so much, because he was so constituted, as because he was a Neophytus, and was besides ordained by a Bishop Excommunicated, and (in their judgements) stood himself Excommunicated at that time. Ignatius professes, that if Photius had been one of the Church, i. e. if he had not been an Excommunicated Person at the time of his Consecration, he would willingly have yielded to him. Ignatius values the Councils that condemned him no more than he did the Lay power. The Vindicator in an Error concerning that Matter. His Errors concerning the Council called the First and Second. A New account of the reason of that Title. His Error concerning the Greatness of the Synod of Rome, called by P. Nicholas against Photius. Photius after he was received by the Church, and confirmed by a general Council, is deposed by the bare Authority of the Emperor Leo; yet his Successor Stephen is received by the Church.  
IT appears from what has been said in the foregoing Chapters, that the Doctrine which we maintain, is grounded on the earliest Antiquity, and confirmed by the Practice of the Church, in the first 400 Years after the Emperors became Christian. We are now fallen into the Dregs of time (says one of our 
* Further account of the Baroccian MS. p. 12.  Answerers, speaking of the Seventh, and the following Centuries) years of Superstition, Idolatry, Dotario age, and Disorder; and therefore tho' the Instances produced out of this Age were truly reported, and pertinent to the Purpose, they would not be fit Examples for us to follow. Had our Author known that the Ages, of which he gives this Character, were the Ages that afford his Party their most considerable (in themselves inconsiderable) Precedents, we should not (I suppose) have found him so ingenuous in his Confession, and free of his Characters, We are now fallen into the Dregs of time: 'Tis true, and no wonder if the Spirit of Antiquity was so far lost, as that some few Instances may be found in these times agreeable to the practice of our Adversaries. But this is confessed by them themselves, that the Examples of these lower Ages, that do not agree with the Practice of the former, are not fit Examples for us to follow.  
In the Year 858. there broke out a Schism at Constantinople, between Ignatius deposed, and Photius, who was constituted in his place. That the Reader may have a full and perfect view of all this Concern; I will first present him with a short Historical, and Chronological Account of the chief Transactions. Secondly, I will show what manner of Man Photius was, who accepted of Ignatius' See, that he was a virtuous and pious Man. Thirdly, I will show by how great and numerous a Party he was received. Fourthly, That they that separated from him, did not look upon him to be otherwise unexceptionable, but separated from him for several Reasons. From whence it appears that the Case is quite different from ours, and no Example for our Adversaries.  
In the Year but now mentioned, Ignatius Patriarch of Constantinople, Son to a former Emperor, Michael Rangabe, was deposed by the Emperor Michael, Surnamed the Drunkard, because he refused to take the Emperor's Sisters and his Mother, and make 'em Nuns by force, as the Emperor had commanded him. This was the immediate Reason: but he that excited the Emperor against him was Bardas' the Emperor's Uncle, whom the Patriarch had a little before Ex-communicated for living incestuously with his own Son's Wife. Ignatius being thus deposed 
(a) Nicetas Paphlag, in vita ejus p. 1229.  November 23. the famous Photius, chief Secretary of State, was on Christmas-Day ordained Patriarch in his stead. 
(b) Nicet●s loc. cit. p. 1200.  Two Months, or to speak exactly, 
(c) Theognostus in Libello Ignatii nomine scripto ad Nicolaum P. I. p. 1268.  forty days after that, Ignatius began to be persecuted, and was 
(d) Theognostus ib. This first Deprivation by Photius is mentioned likewise by Metrophanes Metropolite of Smyrna, Epist. ad Manuelem Patricium.  Deposed and Anathematised by his Successor Photius, whilst absent at the Island Terebinthus; to which he had been banished. He was suspected to have conspired against the Emperor, and on that account suffered very hard things, but nothing could be made out against him. From Terebinthus he was removed to Hieria, from thence to Numera; and, on the Month of 
(e) Necetas, p. 1212.  August▪ after his Ejectment, to the Isle Mitylene, still suffering great Afflictions, and Indignities. Between this time and 
(f) Nicetas, who, says he, had governed full eleven Years when first deposed, adds, p. 1205. That when he was condemned by that Synod, he had been Patriarch very near twelve Years. P. Nicholas I. Ep. 1. & Ep. ad Episcopos & Clerum prov. Constantinop. ap. Acta Concilii VIII. act. 7. p. 1047. says, he had been Patriarch 12 Years.  November following, he was again Deposed and Anathematised, while absent, by a Provincial Synod, which Photius had called. After this the Emperor, and the Patriarch Photius send to Rome to Pope Nicholas, to desire him to send some Legates to Constantinople to consult against the Iconoclasts, intending by the concurrence of those Legates, when they should be sent, to ratify what had been done against Ignatius. The Pope receives his Letters, and refuses to own him as the true Patriarch of Constantinople, till by his Legates he had had a hearing of the whole Cause. He sends his Legates, Radoaldus and Zacharias, both Bishops, to Constantinople, and there in the beginning of the Year 
(g) In February, for the Pope's Letters sent by those Legates are dated September 25. Indict. 9 i. e. A. D. 860. and the Legates were at Constantinople 100 days before the Council sat, as appears from an Epistle of Pope Nicholas to Photius ap. Conc. VIII. p 1034. Metrophanes Bishop of Smyrna, Epig. ad Manuelem Patricium, says, they were at Constantinople eight Months before the sitting of the Council; but that could not be. The Pope's Epistle which he wrote from Constantinople, to signify his dislike of what had been decreed, is dated Mart. 19 Ind. 9 i. e. A. D. 861.  861. by a general Council of no less than 318 Bishops, just the number of the Council of Nice; Ignatius is again Condemned, Deposed, and Anathematised. The Crime alleged against him was 
(a) So Nicetas; but p. 1228, he mentions 52 Heads of Accusations brought against him. , That he had been made Patriarch by the Emperor's bare Authority, without the Suffrages of the Clergy: and this was attested upon Oath by 
(b) In the Ninth Session of the Eighth Council, they own that they were perjured, and that they were put upon it by the Emperor and Bardas'.  72 Witnesses, of whom there were some of the Order of Senators. He appeals from the Council to the Pope, and about Six months after, he sends away privately one of his Friends, by name Theognostus, to the Pope, to give him an Account of what had been done, and to beg his assistance: who resided at Rome 
(c) Hadriani P. II. Epist. ad Imp. Basil. & Ignatium ap. Conc. VIII. p. 1085. Stylianus Episc. Neocaes. Ep. ad Steph. P. p. 1401. Theognostus was at Rome seven Years, ending in August, 868. , as his Legate or Agent, all the time of his Deprivation. The Pope before this had had an Account of the whole Matter: his Legates return from Constantinople with a Copy of the Acts of the Council: he refuses to ratify what they had done, alleging that he had commanded, that nothing should be decreed concerning Ignatius, till they had given him a particular Account, and received his Orders. He sends away speedily to the Emperor and Photius, to let 'em know, that he did not give his Consent to what had been done: requires that Photius should be deposed, and Ignatius restored: and because he was not obeyed, in the Year 
(d) Indict. XI. ut patet ex Conc. VIII. act. 7. p. 1097. Anastasius Bibl. Praef. ad Conc. 8.  863. he calls a Synod at Rome by which he deposes Photius, declares him a mere Layman, and withal Excommunicated if ever he should pretend for the future to Act as Patriarch, so as never to be capable of Absolution 
(e) Decreta Synodi Romanae ap. Epistolam Nicholai P. act. Conc. VIII. p. 1172. , except at the point of Death: The same Synod Excommunicates likewise the 
(f) Nicetas V. Ignatii.  Emperor himself, together with all the Senate, if they refused to receive Ignatius, and to reject Photius. It likewise declares the Orders of all those whom Photius had ordained, void. In the same Synod, Zacharias, one of the Legates, was Deposed and Excommunicated, because he had concurred in the Deprivation of Ignatius: and because the other Legate Radoaldus was not there present, there was afterwards 
(g) Nic. P. Ep. ad Episcopos & Clorum-Constantinopolit. ap. Conc. VIII. act. 7. p. 1070. Anastasius Bibl. Vitâ Nicholai P. I.  another Synod called at Rome on his Account, in which as well as the former he refused to make his appearance; but by this he was Deposed and Anathematised as his Colleague had been in the former. In the Year 
(h) Praeterito anno, per Indict. viz. 13, etc. ait P. Nic. in Ep. praecit. p. 1080.  865. the Emperor sends his Holiness a very contemptful and opprobrious Letter, which provoked him to that Degree, that the next Year after he sends an Epistle to Constantinople, directed to the Bishops and Clergy of that District, in which he requires that the Emperor should make him satisfaction by burning his Epistle. In the same Epistle he exhorts 'em all to receive Ignatius as their Patriarch, and sends 'em the Decrees of his Roman Synod. In the latter end of the same Year, viz. on the Ides of November 866. he sends about many Epistles; to Photius himself, to the Caesar Bardas', to the Empresses Theodora, and Eudoxia (and to the Senate of Constantinople) and he likewise sends to the Emperor, exhorting him to send Ignatius, and Photius both to Rome, that he might sit Judge of their Cause. But so far are all these efforts from prevailing, that as Photius had been deposed by him; so he pays him in his own Measures, and the Emperor by his persuasions calls a General Council at Constantinople; which Condemns, Deposes, and Anathematizes the Pope for certain Crimes charged upon him. This Council sat about 
(a) That it could not be before Whitsunday 866. appears from hence, That Basilius, who subscribed to it as Caesar, was not made Caesar before that time. And that it could not be before after November 866, may be gathered from the several Epistles which Pope Nicholas wrote to Constantinople on that Month, in which he makes no mention of any such design against him. That it was before September 867, is apparent from hence, That the Emperor Michael was killed in that Month. That it was a little before his death appears from hence, that the Messengers who were carrying the Acts of that Council into the West, were overtook and brought back to Constantinople by other Messengers sent after 'em by the new Emperor Basilius, as Nicetas Paphlago tells us. I said that Basilius was made Caesar on Whitsunday 866, for tho' Nicetas seems to intimate, that it was on Whitsunday, before Michael was killed, yet he does not expressly say so; but 'tis expressly asserted by Leo Gramm. and joel, that Basilius reigned with Michael one Year and four Months; and Zonaras says, he reigned with him a Year.  Midsummer 867. 'Twas this, I suppose, that broke Pope Nicholas' heart; for he died presently after. On September 24. the same Year, the Emperor Michael was killed by Basilius Macedo, who the next day after deposed the Patriarch Photius, and on the 23. of Novem. following restored Ignatius to his See, after a Deprivation of Nine years. Having done thus he summoned a General Council, and sends away to Rome to Pope Nicholas, to give him an Account of what he had done. That Pope being dead, his Successor Hadrian II. receives the Emperor's Letter: he calls a 
(b) It appears by the Subscriptions ap. Acta Concilii VIII. p. 1095. that he had not above thirty Bishops in it.  Synod at Rome, confirms the Decrees of Pope Nicholas' Synod against Photius, and condemns the Acts of the late Constantinopolitan Council, by which his Predecessor was deposed to be burnt by the common Hangman; and sends his Legates to Constantinople, by whom he requires, that not a Copy of that Council should be preserved, not an 
(c) Ep. ad Imp. Basilium & Anastasius Bibl. Praef. Conc. VIII.  jota under pain of Excommunication, but all be burnt in the Presence of the General Council. Two 
(d) As appears by the Acts of the Council p. 985. D. and by joannes Bibliothecarius Continuat. Pontificalis in Hadriano II.  years before the Arrival of his Legates at Constantinople, the Bishops were there gathered together: at last they came, and the Council began to sit Octob. 5. 869. It breaks up on the last of Febr. following, and issues out this Decree against Photius: That 
(e) Can. 4.  he never was, nor is now a Bishop; that all his Ordinations are absolutely Null, and that those Churches which he, or they whom he had ordained, had consecrated, should be consecrated again: In fine, they heap upon him a thousand anathemas. This is the Council, which the Church of Rome calls the 8 th'. General Council. In the Year 877. October 23. the Patriarch Ignatius 
(a) Natus annos 80.  dies, after he had been Patriarch the Second time, Ten years wanting a Month. 
(b) Nicetas V. Ignatii.  Three days after his Death Photius is again restored, by the same Emperor that had deposed him, tho' by the late Council he had been declared no Bishop, and Anathematised; and tho' he were declared uncapable of being 
(c) Nusquam per ullum modum vel tempus accepturus locum satisfactionis Desinitio Thomae Episcopi Tyri in Concilio act. 1. p. 993. à toto Concilio rata, p. 994.  ever restored by any means whatever. Being thus restored, he is generally owned, and even by the Pope of Rome himself, Pope john the Successor of Hadrian; and confirmed by a General Council called at Constantinople of 373 Bishops, which began to sit in the beginning 
(d) Actio secunda fuit N●v. 7. Ind. 13. ut patet ex Acts.  of November 879. After the Expiration of Nine years, from the time of his Restitution, he was again deposed by the Emperor Leo.  
Secondly, That the Patriarch Photius, who accepted of the See when Ignatius had been so unjustly deposed by the Lay-power, was a very great Man for his Parts, and his Learning, the most learned Person of his Age, and Equal to the Ancients themselves, is confessed by even his 
(e) Nicetas V. Ignatii.  greatest Adversaries. That he was likewise a very pious and religious Man, they will easily be satisfied, who lay all things together in the Balance, and weigh impartially those things that may be said for him, against those things which his Enemies have alleged against him. It is true, that the Ignatians heretofore, such as Nicetas Paphlago, whose Life of Ignatius is nothing but an angry and malicious Invective against Photius, have endeavoured to make him appear under a very horrid Shape; and the Church of Rome, because he so manfully opposed, and even deposed their Pope, is willing to believe whatever his Enemies have said to his Disparagement. But 'tis easy to discover, that all that his Enemies allege, is rather the result of their malice, than any wise probable. 'Tis confessed by the learned Vindicator, that we have Photius' Cause conveyed to us with no small disadvantage: His Adversaries (says he) at that very time suppressed his principal Writings on that Subject; they seized and burnt his Original Papers, before any Copies could be transcribed; they have afterwards had it in their Power to suppress many of his other Works, whilst the Empire of Constantinople was in the hands of Latins, or Latinizing Greeks; and they have since had it in their Power, to hinder the Printing of as many of them as have not fallen into the hands of Protestants. This no doubt, must needs have proved very prejudicial to a right understanding of his Cause, that we have very few assistances for understanding it, but from his professed and very inveterate Enemies. We are told by Nicetas, that when Photius was deposed by the Emperor Basilius, there was taken from him 
(a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, p. 1225.  Seven Bags full of 
(b) Amongst them were two Volumes containing the Acts of his two General Councils, that against Ignatius and that against Pope Nicholas; which were burnt with the rest, together with two other Copies of the same Councils which Photius had sent into the West, and the Emperor Basilius had recalled, by sending some that overtook the Messengers.  Writings, which his Servants had endeavoured to hide and secure: all which were publicly burnt by that Council, by which he was a little after Condemned. Had not such Tricks as these been made use of, things would have been placed in another manner of Light: But still there is extant enough to convince any disinterested Man, that Photius had no such black within him, as his Enemies have laid upon him. That he was accounted by his Followers a very holy Man, may be gathered from his Enemy 
(c) P. 1228. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Nicetas; and from others of his Enemies it appears, that before he was made Patriarch he was accounted a Person of a strict and virtuous Life. He complains in one of his 
(d) Ep. 3. p. 67. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Epistles to Bardas', of the Lies invented against him. Whatsoever was inflicted on the Patriarch Ignatius, all that Nicetas, and others deceived by him, impute to our Patriarch Photius: but 'tis easy to discover, that what he says is all Conjecture and Malice; and Photius himself complained in another 
(e) Ep. 8. ad Bardam, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.  Epistle, that when he himself suffered unjustly, he was accused of injuring others: and this, he says, extremely afflicted him. But 
(f) H●ec Epistola (says Bishop Montague in his Notes upon it) uti & praecedentes ad Bardam scriptae, Photium, impium, improbum, & hypocritam non repraesentant, quod calumniatur Baronius, sed verè pium, & divined providenti●e se submittentem.  thanks (says he) for all things to God our Saviour, etc. It's alleged by his Enemy Nicetas, that he was very Ambitious, and that through Ambition he catched at Ignatius 's Dignity greedily and impudently: But hear him himself; he assures us, that he was not willing to be made Patriarch 
(g) P. john, Epist ad Basil. Imp. ap. Conc. juxta Graecos 8. in Pandect. Bevereg. to. 2. p. 276. says he was forced likewise when he was restored; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  at all, but was quite drawn, as it were, and forced to it. This he affirmed not only in an Epistle to 
(h) As the Pope mentions in an Epistle of his.  Pope Nicholas, but also in another to Bardas'. And tho' it might be suspected, that in writing to the Pope, he might make use of a Nolo Episcopari, for mere Form, as even the most ambitious Bishops are wont to do: yet it cannot be supposed, that he would ever have wrote so to Bardas', if it had not been really so, since Bardas' was the Person that preferred him, and very well knew whether that which he said was true or not. Neither did his unwillingness to be made Ignatius' Successor, proceed from this Consideration, that Ignatius was deposed by the Lay-power, but from the Sense he had of the height of the Station. His Words are these 
(a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ep. 6.  I knew even before I had experience of it, that I was unworthy of the Patriarchal Dignity, and of the Pastoral Care; and on that account, when I was driven and drawn on to it, it went extremely against me. And would to God I had died before I yielded to the intolerable Violence of those that compelled me to it. He adds, That therefore he was the more unwilling, because his Mind misgave him, that he should meet with great Troubles. 
(b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  I was therefore (says he) extremely afflicted by their Importunities: I wept, entreated 'em, and would have done any thing to have got myself excused. 'Tis objected besides by the malicious Nicetas, that whilst he was Patriarch he made it his business to collogue unworthily with the Persons in Authority, that he might not be deprived of his Bishopric. But this likewise appears to be a malicious Calumny. Let any one read his 13th. Epistle to Basilius (afterwards Emperor) at that time advanced to the high Station of Patricius and Perfect of Constantinople, and then let him tell me what he thinks of him; if it does not appear, That he was so far from being, through Ambition, a fordid Assentator or Flatterer, that his Boldness and Freeness in speaking, and reprehending, aught to be admired. How boldly, how undauntedly, how much like a Patriarch does he tell Basilius of his Faults! how undauntedly does he tell that great Man 
(c) Ep. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. , that by his being made the Governor of others more worthy than himself, a whole Iliad of Evils had befallen the City! This abundantly shows the Bravery of Photius' Spirit: And yet there is one thing more which far exceeds that, and, in spite of all the Malice and Calumny of his Enemies, declares him a most admirable Patriarch. 'Tis that which is related by Zonaras, in these Words. 
(d) Annal. l. 16. c. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Basilius (says he) having murdered the Emperor Michael, and placed himself upon the Throne, when he came into the Church to receive the Sacrament, the Patriarch Photius refused to give it him, call him Murderer. For which (adds he) the Emperor being angry, called a 
(a) So joannes Thracesius Scylitzes ap. Append. Actorum Graec. Concilii VIII. c. 12. p. 1432. (and out of him Cedrenus) says he expelled Photius by a Synod: by which they mean the VIII. Gen. Council, (as the Latins call it.) But 'tis certain that Photius wa● expelled before that Council by the Emperor's bare Authority; who pretended that he did it in Obedience to the Decrees of Pope Nicholas' Synod.  Synod, and deposed him, pretending this reason, that he had been uncanonically constituted. For this Relation of Zonaras, the Cardinal Baronius is very angry with him 
(b) Ad an. 867. p. 380. . Haec Zonaras Schismaticus favens Schismatico novam & inauditam fingens causam Photii ejectionis. He calls him a Schismatic, as being of the Greek Church, which in Zonaras' time was, in the Judgement of the Latins, Schismatical: But what if Zonaras was of the Greek Church? why should he therefore invent such a Lie? Against this Relation the Cardinal urges the Authority of the Emperor's own Letter to Pope Nicholas (or Hadrian) and of Pope Hadrian's Epistle to him; from whence he says, it appears that the Emperor deposed Photius in obedience to Pope Nicholas' Decrees. It is true, that That was his Pretence; and that is all that can be made out by the Epistles. Here Zonaras tells us what excited him to make use of such a Pretence. But it is not only Zonaras, as Baronius thought, that gives this account of Photius' stout Behaviour towards the Emperor, and that That was the reason of his being ejected. The same is attested by the Chronographer 
(c) P. 179. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  joel: and not by him only, but also by 
(d) Chronogr. p. 471. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Leo Grammaticus, who flourished above 100 Years before Zonaras; and by Georgius 
(*) De novis Imp. p. 544.  Monachus. And to these I add 
(e) Cit à Labb●eo not. in Append. Actorum Graec. Concilii VIII. p. 1431.  Georgius Hamartolus, an Historian, not yet published, who flourished at this very time, and ended his History in the Beginning of our Emperor Basilius. I shall close this Paragraph with the Testimonies of the Emperor 
† Hist. Basilii Macedonis. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. c. 44.  Constantinus Porphyrogennetus, who highly praises our Patriarch; not only for his Wisdom, but likewise for his Virtue; and of Pope john IX. in his Epistle to the Emperor 
(f) Ap. Acta Conc. VIII. juxta Graecos, Pandect. Bevereg. to. 2. p. 277. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (sic leg.) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. These words are not in the Epistle published Conc. Labbaei, tom. 8. p. 1452. which the Popish Editors call the genuine Epistle; looking upon this as corrupted by Photius. But 'tis this is the genuine one, and the other is corrupted.  Basilius: He there calls him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And then adds: We have heard from almost all People that come from Constantinople to us, that he is a Person adorned with Divine and Primitive Qualifications, and excellent above all others for his Wisdom and Understanding in Matters both Humane and Divine; famous for all practical Virtues, and an unblameable Observer of the Divine Commands. And we think it not just, that such and so great a Man should continue without Employment in the Church; but that being exalted, and shining in the Church, he should act as a Bishop and Patriarch.  
Thirdly, In the Third place we are to inquire by whom and by how many the Patriarch Photius was received as Patriarch, and by whom and by how great a Party rejected. He himself complains in an Epistle to Bardas', which he wrote some time after his Advancement, that he was deprived of 
(a) Ep. 3. p. 66. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  half his Jurisdiction; but he ought not to be understood strictly, but as the word is commonly used, for a great part.  
1. He was received by even such Metropolitans as were Friends to Ignatius, not induced thereunto by Hatred against Ignatius. This appears from what Nicetas and others relate. The Metropolitans (says 
(b) Vita Ign. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Nicetas) who received him as Patriarch, first made him give it under his hand, that he would honour Ignatius as his Father, and would do all things according to his Will, and would not grieve him in any thing. By another Author, a great Enemy of Photius and his Party, we find it related thus 
(c) Anonymus de Photianorum Perjuriis ap. Append. Actorum Graec. Concilii VIII. p. 1413. . When first Bardas' Caesar (says he) attempted to eject the Patriarch Ignatius; Ignatius, that he might not be driven out with Ignominy, chose rather to recede of himself: But the Bishops made a Protestation, That if Bardas' took upon him to depose him, they would rather suffer the greatest Extremities, than permit it to be done. And thus they kept Ignatius from resigning. But when Bardas' afterwards had deposed him, the Bishops joined themselves with Bardas', and so made themselves obnoxious to the Anathema, which they had pronounced against themselves, if they should permit Ignatius to be deposed. Then Photius being by force thrust into the Throne, the Bishops required him to give 'em an assurance under his hand, that he would pay Ignatius all due honour, etc. Metrophanes, Bishop of Smyrna, another great Ignatian 
(d) Ep. ad Manuclem Patricium ap. Append. Actorum Graec. Conc. VIII. p. 1385. , tells us, That Photius being thrust into Ignatius 's Throne by Bardas', all the Bishops rejected him, and pitched upon three others (as fitter to be chosen in Ignatius' room) and in that mind continued for many days; but at last the Generality of the Bishops were prevailed with to accept of Photius, all, except five, of which he himself was one. He adds, That he himself, and the other four his Associates, did at last comply when they saw that the Generality of the Bishops were resolved to accept of Photius: When therefore (says he) he had given it under his hand that he would carry himself towards Ignatius as towards an unblameable Patriarch, and neither speak any thing against him himself, nor approve of any that should do so, we received him, being forced thereunto by the Emperor and Bardas'. A little while after he took away the Paper he had given us under his hand, and deposed Ignatius. At which time 
(a) P. 1388. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.  all the Bishops of the District of Constantinople being present, anathematised Photius, and pronounced him deposed in the Name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost; and also anathematised themselves if ever they should own him as Patriarch. This Synod sitting for 40 days together in the Church of S. Irene; Photius in the mean while, by the assistance of Bardas', gets a Synod 
* How then could the other Synod consist of all the Bishops of the District of Constantinople?  together in the Church of the Apostles, deposes Ignatius again, and anathematizes him. For which we reproved him to his face, and were therefore violently deposed and imprisoned together with Ignatius. The same Author adds, That Photius was condemned by Five Synods, and the first of these Five he makes to be this at Constantinople; and again he says, That it consisted of 
(b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, p. 1392.  all the Bishops of the District of Constantinople. All this that he says concerning the Synod of Constantinople is a very great Falsity; so notorious an Untruth, that I easily persuade myself that the Author of this Epistle was not Metrophanes the Ignatian Metropolite of Smyrna, but some later Person who forged it in his Name: And this may be confirmed from 
(c) 1. He says that Ignatius was carried Prisoner to Mitylene after he was deposed by Photius in a Synod; whereas it appears by Nicetas in his Life, that he was at that time a Prisoner in Mitylene. 2. The third Synod which (as he says) condemned Photius, he makes to be called by Pope Nicholas before he sent away his Legates Radoaldus and Zacharias to Constantinople. But 'tis certain from Pope Nicholas' first Epistle to the Emperor Michael, and from his first to Photius, that he was not at that time condemned in any Synod called at Rome. The Pope indeed refuses to own him as Patriarch; but he sends his Legates to Constantinople to inquire into his Cause, intending to act according to the account they should give him. So the Author de Perjuriis Photianorum, p. 1415. mentions only two Roman Synods in which Photius was condemned, viz. that called by Pope Nicholaes' after the return of his Legates from Constantinople, and that called by Pope Hadrian. The Emperor Basilius' Legates to Pope Hadrian in their Speech, which they spoke before the Pope had called his Synod, recorded by joannes Bibl. in Pontificalis Contenuat. V. Hadr. II. assert, That before that he was bis à Sede Apostolicâ judicatus bisque damnatus: But that Speech seems to be made by the Author himself, who therefore makes 'em speak so; because when he wrote, it was true that he had been twice condemned at Rome. Unless we will suppose that Pope Nicholas' second Synod, which he called to condemn Radoaldus for consenting to Ignatius' Condemnation, might be meant for one. 3. He says that the Pope's Legates were at Constantinople eight Months before they could be persuaded to join with Photius: which could not possibly be; for the Legates did not leave Rome before Septemb. 25. 860. and the Council in which they condemned Ignatius must needs be ended in February following, as has been already proved.  other Errors, of which he is guilty. That there was no such Synod as he speaks of, will be easily granted by those that have read Ignatius' Life, written by Nicetas; his Case presented by Theognostus to Pope Nicholas, Pope Nicholas' Epistles, the Acts of the VIII th'. General Council, Anastasius Bibliothecarius his Preface to it, Stylianus his Epistle to Pope Steven I. and the Anonymous Author de Perjuriis Photianorum: who tho' they were all great Enemies to Photius, yet make no mention of any such Synod. Had Photius been condemned by any such Synod, we should have had it everywhere mentioned and alleged against him. To this I add, That it is not at all likely that the Emperor and Bardas' would suffer such a Synod to sit 40 Days together in the Church of S. Irene against their Patriarch. The whole Truth is this: When Ignatius began to be persecuted, than some of the Bishops and others, excited by Compassion towards their old Patriarch, began to fall off from him. So Anastasius Bibliothecarius expressly tells us. He tells us, that Ignatius being in Banishment, was extremely tormented by Bardas'; that he was continually cufft, and had his Teeth struck out: Then he adds 
(a) Praef. Conc. VIII. His ergo compertis COEPERUNT NONNULLI Metropolitani antistites, ac inferioris sacerdotii vel Laici Pontificis sui tormentis compatientes, dejectionémque dolentes, rectorem sibi proprium reddi, magnopere clamitarc. ; These things being known, some Metropolitans and inferior Churchmen and Laymen, compassionating the Afflictions of their Patriarch; and being sorry for his being deposed, began to cry out very zealously to have him restored.  
2. 
(b) Ep. ad Steph. P.  Stylianus, Bishop of Neocaesarea, a great Ignatian, tells us, That the People of Constantinople were induced by the Authority of the Pope, after his Legates Radoaldus and Zacharias had deposed Ignatius in the Synod of Constantinople, to own and receive Photius; intimating, that they did not do so before. But that is notoriously false. Anastasius Bibiiothecarius having told us, that some Metropolitans, etc. began to cry out to have Ignatius restored; adds, that on that account Photius called a Synod, and deposed and anathematised Ignatius. And this being done (says 
(c) Quo gesto magis ac magis pietas fidelium accenditur, & eò constantiùs ab universis ovibus proprius Pastor exquiritur quo versutiùs lupi crudelitas fuerit.  he) the piety of the Faithful was the more inflamed; and the more constantly did the Sheep require their Shepherd, the more cruelly Photius raged. It is plain from these words, and those but now produced, that they first adhered to Photius; and that they that afterwards left him, were drawn off from him, not by their Consciences, but their Passions. He afterwards adds, That after Photius had been Condemned, and Deposed by the Pope in his Synod at Rome, they that were subject to Photius, Sequestered themselves from him in whole Troops, as paying great Deference to the 
* Cujus Censure Photio minimè parent, sacratus fidelium catalogus magis in●lammatur, & ab ejus se communione catervatim sequestrate, horrescens quod nec à tantâ sede perculsus corrigi consenserit.  Pope's Authority.  
Thirdly, How great and numerous a Party there continued to adhere to Photius, may be gathered from the great number of Bishops, which sat in the Two Synods called against Ignatius: by both which Ignatius was Condemned, and Anathematised. The first of those two Synods is spoken of by Radoaldus, and Zacharias, the Pope's Legates, who sat in the Second, 
(a) Ap. Theognosti Libel. pro Ignatio ad Nic. P.  as a Synod of Authority sufficient to depose Ignatius. The Second Synod was so numerous, that it consisted of 318. Bishops, and was not only Provincial, but General. So 'tis expressly called by 
(b) Comment. in Canon's istius; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.  Balsamon. So likewise by those Messengers 
(c) Ap. Nicetam V. Ignatii, p. 1205. , whom it sent to command Ignatius to make his appearance. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Again, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And that there were Legates in it, sent as well from the Eastern Patriarches, of Alexandria, Antioch, and jerusalem, as from the Pope, is sufficiently apparent from the Reason of its being called. For why should Photius send to the Bishop of Rome, to have Legates sent from thence, and not to the rest of the Patriarches? Was it because the Council of Sardica seems to give the Bishop of Rome a particular Power in the Deprivation of Bishops? That could not be the Reason, for neither was the Council of Sardica, regarded by 
(d) Nicholaus P. Ep. ad Photium ap. Conc. VIII. act. 4. p. 1033. Quod verò dicitis, neque Sardicense Concilium neque Decretalia vos habere sanctorum▪ Pontificum, vel recipere, non facilè nobis facultas credendi tribuitur maximè cum Sardidicense Concilium quod penès vos in vestris regionibus actum est, & omnis recipit: quâ ratione convenerat; ut hoc sancta Constantinopolitana Ecclesia abjiceret, & (ut dignum est) non retineret, etc.  Photius, neither was the business of Ignatius' Deprivation the only Reason why this Council was called. For it's very notorious, that one great Reason, why Photius got this Council to be called, was, because the Iconoclasts began at that time to grow powerful, that by the Decrees of a Council, that Sect might be utterly suppressed. This appears by P. Nicholas' first Epistles to the Emperor Michael and Photius, sent in Answer to theirs, by the Legates Radoaldus, and Zacharias, who were sent to that Council. And it also appears by what was done in that Council. For the Council sat twice, so as to seem two different Councils, once about the Patriarch Ignatius, and another time about the Iconoclasts, and other matters relating to the Discipine of the Church. And hence it came to be called, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the First and Second Council. This is what the Learned have not hitherto observed. The learned Vindicator is extremely mistaken concerning this Council. The Author of the Synodicon (says 
* P. 78.  he) besides the Synod, which he mentions cap. 148. by which, he says, Photius was made Patriarch, makes two more, (c. 149, 150.) the former in Blachernis, the latter in the Church of the Apostles. This I take to be the A. B. Synodus, wherein Ignatius was deposed, as the Commentators expressly tell us. And the two Sessions of that same Synod in different places, as it gave occasion for them to give the Title of A. B. to the Synod itself; so it also seems to have been the occasion, why this injudicious Collector of the Synodicon, should make two Synods of it. The latter of the two Sessions was that wherein the Pope's Legates were either forced, or bribed to sign the Condemnation of Ignatius. I am apt to think, that the true occasion of convening a Second time the same Bishops before they were departed to their several Homes, was the unexpected arrival of the Legates, that they also might Conciliarly confirm, what had been done in the Council before their Arrival. I shall not take this Account in pieces, to confute the several parts of it, but proceed to demonstrate the truth. We are told by the Commentator Zonaras, that this Synod sat 
(a) Zonara's, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  both times in the Church of the Apostles; and that therefore it was called First and Second, because it was forced to break up re infectâ, by reason of a Disturbance occasioned by the seditious Heretics (so the Iconoclasts were called) and afterwards met together again, and so published its Decrees. In this account Zonaras is followed by Balsamon. 'Tis the opinion of the Reverend and very Learned 
(b) Not. in hoc Conc. Pandect. tom. 2. p. 170.  Dr. Beverege, that therefore it was called First and Second, because it was really two distinct Councils, and the Decrees of the former were confirmed by the latter. The first of those two Councils, he takes to be that in which Nicetas says Ignatius was Condemned when absent, (which was only a Provincial one;) the Second, to be that in which the Pope's Legates, Radoaldus and Zacharias, sat Precedents. This Conjecture may seem to be confirmed by this Consideration, that the former, the Provincial Synod, was likewise in the Church of the Apostles, as appears (tho' the Synodicon makes it to have been in Blachernis) by the express Testimony of Nicetas, and Metrophanes Bishop of Smyrna; or whoever else was the Author of the Epistle written in his Name. To which may be added, That as both Condemned the Patriarch Ignatius, so Zonaras (whom Balsamon followed) seems to speak only by Hear-say, when he says, that the Council called First and Second, was in truth but one Council, and was therefore called First and Second, because it broke up, by reason of Tumults and Disturbances, and afterwards sat a Second time: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. But notwithstanding all this, it is certain, that the Council called First and Second, was really but one Council; that the Roman Legates presided in both its Sessions, or Parts; that the former Provincial Synod is not to be reckoned as one part of it, but that it was so called because it met twice, upon two different Matters, One the Deprivation of Ignatius, and the Other the Condemnation of the Iconoclasts, and had two distinct Tomes containing the Acts, and Decrees of the two distinct Sessions. But how does this New Account appear to be true? I gather what I have asserted from an Epistle of 
(a) Ap. Conc. VIII. act. 7. p. 1068.  P. Nicolas to the Bishops and Clergy of the District of Constantinople. He there says, that after Ignatius had been condemned at Constantinople by the Synod, in which his Legates, Radoaldus and Zacharias, presided, the Emperor Michael sent him, duo volumina, quorum unum Depositionis Ignatii gesta continebat, alterum autem de sanctis habebat Imaginibus acta. In the same Epistle 
(b) P. 1069. , a little after, he speaks of this Council, as of two distinct Councils, because of its two distinct Parts, and two distinct Acta. Alia illa concilia, quae imminentibus illis (Radoaldo & Zacharia Legatis praesidentibus) Constantinopoli celebrata sunt, viz. tam id quod adversus Patriarcham Ignatium, quam id quod pro sacris Imaginibus collectum est. It appears from Theognostus, that in that Session or Convention, in which Ignatius was condemned, there happened a great Disturbance, and Swords were drawn, and some wounded: and this (I suppose) it was, that occasioned that Report mentioned, and followed by Zonaras, that therefore the first Convention broke up re infectâ, because the Iconoclasts disturbed 'em, and Swords were drawn, and many killed. The first part of this Council consisted of Seven Actions, as appears by Nicetas, who gives an Account of 'em all, as written in a Volume directed by Photius to the Western Emperor Ludovicus, and in another which Photius kept himself, both which were seized by the Emperor Basilius, and burned (at least one of 'em) by the General Council that restored Ignatius. That Copy which the Legates Radoaldus, and Zacharias brought with 'em from Constantinople to Rome, seems to have been preserved in the Library at Rome. Certain it is, that Anastasius Bibliothecarius quotes the Acts of that Session, which condemned Ignatius, as extant when he wrote, which was some few years after 
(c) Pontificali V. Nicholai I. . Sicut in gestis Constantinopolitanis ab illis compilatis facile reperitur. We are told by Nicetas, that all this Volume of the Acts of the Council which condemned Ignatius, was 
(d) V. Ign. p. 1225. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  forged by Photius: but that's an idle and a foolish Calumny.  
Theognostus tells us, that the Patriarch Ignatius when he was brought before this Council, alleged, that before they took upon 'em to try him, they ought to displace Photius, else they could not be his Judges: to which Radoaldus and Zacharias, the Pope's Legates, replied, That the 
(e) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (Theognostus speaks in the Person of Ignatius) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Emperor would not permit it to be done. Tho' they grant it to be agreeable to the Prescript of the Canons; yet because the Emperor would not permit it, they plead that Necessity, as a sufficient excuse. He also adds, that the Metropolitans in that Council, being asked by the Princes, who sat there with 'em, why they desired to have Ignatius again for their Patriarch, 
(a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  since they did not in the beginning oppose his Deprivation; they answered, That two evils being proposed, the Emperor's Displeasure, and the Insurrection of the People, they chose the least. But do you (say they) who are about the Emperor, restore our Patriarch to his Throne, and we are ready to receive him. Here it ought to be observed, that tho' they still owned, that Ignatius was unjustly deposed, tho' still they loved him so much as to desire he should be restored, yet they own the present Possessor, because the Emperor would not suffer Ignatius to Govern any longer.  
Fourthly, So great was the number of Bishops that received and acknowleged Photius, that to the Decree of his Third Council, which was called against Pope Nicholas, there subscribed no less than about a Thousand, the most numerous Subscription that ever was to any Council. I do not suppose, that there were so many Bishop's present in the Council: a great many of 'em, I suppose, were procured after the Council was broke up; and so 
(b) V. Ign. p. 1224.  Nicetas seems to intimate. But how does it appear, that about a Thousand Bishops subscribed? It appears, from the express Testimony of 
(c) Praef. Conc. VIII. Mille circiter Antistisam subscriptiones.  Anastasius Bibliothecarius, who was present in the 8 th'. General Council (commonly so called) where the Acts and Subscriptions of this Council were burnt. Neither was it only the Bishops of the District of Constantinople that subscribed to that Council, for the Bishops of that District were at most not above Five hundred, there were therefore near Five hundred of the other Patriarchates. And there were present in that Council, Legates from the Three great Eastern Sees of Alexandria, Antioch, and jerusalem, who all subscribed to it. I know that Anastasius pretends, that almost all those Subscriptions were forged by Photius, and that of all that great multitude not above Twenty one did really subscribe: I know that it is commonly alleged by the Enemies of Photius, as frequently in the Acts of the 8 th'. Council, that Photius forged all the Acts of that Council, all the Speeches recorded in those Acts, together with all the Subscriptions: but withal I know, that there needs but very little Judgement to discover the falsity of that Allegation. I know that they whose Names were subscribed in this Photian Council, did generally deny before the 8 th'. (Anti-Photian) Council that they ever subscribed; I know that the 
(d) Act. 8. p. 1103.  Metropolitans did so; that 
(e) Ibid. act. 1. p. 997. act. 4. p. 1035.  Thomas Bishop of Tyre, who represented the Patriarch of Antioch in this Council, denied that the Church of Antioch ever sent to, or received any Letters from Photius; that 
(a) Ibid. act. 4. p. 1035. act. 5. p. 1042.  Elias who sat there as a Legate from the Patriarch of jerusalem, expressly affirms more than once, that the Church of jerusalem never received Photius, that she never sent to him, or received a Letter from him: I know that he asserts this, as before God, and the Elect Angels. Nay more, I acknowledge that they who sat in this Photian Council, as Legates from the three Eastern Patriarches, being called before the 8 th'. (Anti-Photian) Council 
(b) Act 8. p. 1102, 1103. act. 9 p. 1121, 1122.  did all deny that they were sent from their respective Churches as Legates; that they own themselves to be mean Persons, and that they were corrupted by Photius. All this I acknowledge: and this, you will say, is enough to prove our Patriarch Photius a very great Villain, and to ruin the Authority of the Acts of his Council. No such matter: We need but consider the Circumstances of those times, and then we may easily see, that all that was denied, was either through ignorance denied, or for fear. The Pope of Rome having been Condemned, and Anathematised by this Photian Council, there was nothing to be expected from Rome by those, over whom that proud and imperious Church had any power, but utter Ruin, Deprivation, anathemas, all that ever she could inflict: The Emperor Basilius having deposed the stout Patriarch Photius, whom at that time he mortally hated, what now must be done, that he may ingratiate himself with the Pope? He had lately subscribed, as Caesar, to the Pope's Condemnation; what shall he do to pacify an implacable Pope? 'Tis no very difficult matter. It is but to bring in the Acts of the Photian Council before a great Company (as Nicetas tells us was done) and there seem astonished at the strange Impostures of Photius. His own Name subscribed! He, for his part knows nothing of it. And what follows then? a general Protestation of all. There is no one (forsooth!) of all those, who saw their Names subscribed, knows any thing of the matter. Who dares to do it? Thus after a general Subscription there follows a general 
(c) Nicetas V. Ignatii. Metrophanes Ep. ad Manuelem Patricium. Legati imp. Basilii ap. Pontificale V. Hadriani II.  Denial. Thus the Eastern Churches for fear of the Roman anathemas deny, that they sent any Legates, or acknowleged Photius as Patriarch; and the Legates themselves, are forced to say they were no Legates, lest by standing out in the Truth, they should run themselves Headlong into inevitable ruin, and expose themselves to the bitterest torments. And here I cannot but observe, that when Basilius and Leontius the Legates of Alexandria, and jerusalem, were examined by the Anti-Photian Council, and scrupled to Anathematise those who subscribed to the Photian Acts, and had any thing to do in his Council, the Pope's Legates cry out to affright 'em to a Compliance 
(d) P. 1103. Senatus dixit: Quoniam non vultis anathematizare, apparet quia comparticipes ejus (Photii) estis; ut aut anathematizemini & ipsi, aut tradamini Legibus Vicarii Romae dixerunt. Quoniam non patiuntur anathematizare qui fecit malum hoc, tradantur nobis, & descendant nobiscum Romam, etc. , Deliver 'em up to us, that they may be carried to Rome. This scared 'em quite out of their Honesty, and so they pronounce the Anathema. That what I have said is a true Account of the Matter, they that are altogether disengaged from Prejudice, will (I sansie) easily grant. For how is it possible for an unprejudiced Man to believe, that the great Photius would ever have dared to be Guilty of so gross an an Imposture so easy to be detected? Who can believe, that Photius never sent to the Eastern Patriarches, as the Legates in the 8th. Council affirm? It appears moreover, from the Testimony of George, who sat as Legate in our Photian Council from the Church of Antioch, that there was a correspondence betwixt that Church and Photius, whatever the Bishop of Tyre, either through Fear or Ignorance, asserts to the contrary. Tho' the Legate George is forced to say, that he was not sent from that Church as a Legate; yet even that which he says, is enough to prove that there was a correspondence. I came (says he) to Constantinople 
(a) Conc. VIII. act. 9 p. 1122. , tamummodo ut literarum delator, à Constantino Oeconomo Antiochensium Ecclesiae (there was no Patriarch of Antioch at that time, and in the Vacancy the Oeconomus was the chief Person of the Church) missus. Ab eo enim missus sum ad Photium & Michaelem Imp. 
(b) Praef. Conc. VIII. p. 966. Sanè notandum quod caeteri Throni nihil, inter Agarenos positi, super hoc negotio sumpsêre laboris.  causa benedictionis. To this I must add, that tho' the Pope after he had condemned Photius in his Synod at Rome, sent about his Synodical Letters to all the Eastern Patriarches, yet 'tis confessed by the Ignatians themselves, as by Anastasius Bibliothecarius, That the Eastern Patriarches were not any way active against Photius. It moreover appears, that during all the time of Ignatius' Deprivation, the Eastern Patriarches, at least the Patriarch of jerusalem, had no correspondence with Ignatius. This Theodosius Patriarch of jerusalem confesses of himself, in the 
(c) Nosti autem utique, sanctissime, causam, ob quam neque scribere neque mittere potuimus ad vos, ne forte fieremus penes potestatem, quae nos tenet existimationi malae vel suspicioni; ap. Conc. 8. p. 987.  Letter which he wrote him after his Restauration, pretending to him then, that the reason was, because living under the Government of the Saracens, he dared not write into those Parts. What, not in so long a time?  
Fifthly, That the Clergy (in General) the Senate, and all the whole City of Constantinople received, and submitted to Photius, is confessed by Baanes, the Praepositus, in the Presence of the 
(d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Act. 8. p. 1352. Sic Acta Latina p. 1100. Sacerdotium & Senatus & tota civitas.  8 th'. Council. So 
(e) p. 1213.  Nicetas says in the Life of Ignatius, that P. Nicholas, and his Synod, Excommunicated Photius and his Adherents, the Emperor and all the Senate. And the Emperor 
(f) Ap. Acta Concilii VIII. act. 3. p. 1295. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Basilius tells P. Nicholas (or Hadrian, for he received the Epistle) in the Epistle which he wrote to him against Photius, That there were very few Bishops that adhered to Ignatius, and did not own Photius. How very few Bishops there were, that adhered to Ignatius, may be gathered from the Acts of the 8 th'. Council. In the beginning of that Council all the Bishops that had adhered to Ignatius, are called in by the Legates of the Patriarchal Sees. 
(a) P. 1229.  Ingrediantur Episcopi QVOT QVOT pro veritate Ignatio adjuncti depugnarunt: then all are mentioned 
(b) Nicephorus Amasiae, joannes Silei, Nicetas Athenarum, Metrophanes Smyrnae, Michael Rhodi, Georgius Iliopoleos, Petrus Troadis, Nicetas Cephaludii, Athanasius Magnesiae, Nicephorus Crotonae, Antonius Alisi, Michael Gercyrorum.  by Name, and they amount to no more than twelve, tho' in the whole District of Constantinople there were near upon Five hundred. 'Tis true, I believe there might be some few more who were not then at Constantinople, because Stylianus Bishop of Neocaesaria, who was not one of those twelve, (but was present in the last Act of the Council) 
(c) Ep. ad Steph. P.  affirms, that he had constantly adhered to Ignatius: But it is not to be doubted, but that all that possibly could, took care to be present at Constantinople, at the beginning of the Council. It is here to be observed, that even these few did not reject Photius, but owned him as Patriarch till he began to persecute Ignatius. This may be gathered from the Epistle of Metrophanes to Manuel Patricius, already quoted.  
Sixthly, Neither was it only by the Eastern Bishops that Photius was received. It appears moreover, that, tho' the Pope, who was Patriarch of the West, had condemned Photius by a Synod, yet many even amongst the Latins themselves, acknowleged him as Patriarch of Constantinople. This I gather from what Nicetas Paphlago relates, That Photius having with his Council condemned P. Nicholas, sent to the Emperor of the Latins, LUDOVICUS, to desire him to eject him; and this (says 
(d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 1224. I believe this Agreement between Photius and the Emperor Ludovicus was made when the Council was first summoned.  Nicetas) the Emperor readily complied with, and promised to do. What he adds concerning the Motive, made use of by Photius, that he promised to make Ludovicus and his Wife Ingelberta, Emperor and Empress of Constantinople, if he would do it, that's so idle and incredible a Story, that there's no one but may easily perceive it to be nothing, but the issue of his Malice. The Synod which concurred with P. Nicholas, in condemning Photius at Rome, is said by Nicetas to be 
(e) P. 1213.  a Synod of the whole Church: in another 
(f) P. 1253.  place he calls it a Provincial Synod. Pope Hadrian's Legates in the 
(g) Act. 1. p. 995. Tunc cognoscens diviserus Papa Nichol Scrutatus omnia, fecit Synodum & convocavit OMNES Occidentales Episcopos, Archiepiscopos, Metropolitas, & omnem Clerum sanctae Romanae Ecclesiae, ac totum Senatum Principum Romanorum, etc.  8 th'. General Council, affirm, that it consisted of all the Western Bishops, Archbishops, Metropolitans, and all the Clergy of Rome, together with the Senate and Nobility. In another 
(a) Ibid. act. 7. p. 1064. So ●ct. 6. p. 1055, they say that the Pope condemned him. Indict. XI. collectis Occidentalibus Episcopis in Ecclesiâ B. Petri.  place they tell us, that Photius was condemned by P. Nicholas, cum OMNIBUS occidentalibus Pr●sulibus. So the Emperor 
(b) Sermone Exhortatorio lecto in Conc. VIII, act. 6. p. 1056.  Basilius asserts, that the Pope, cum totâ Romanorum Ecclesiâ, condemned him. Metrophanes Bishop of Smyrna, (or whoever else was the Author of the Epistle inscribed to Manuel Patricius) is more modest: he only says, that it was 
(c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Append. Actorum Graec. Concilii VIII. p. 1388.  no small Synod. So likewise is P. Nicholas himself in his Epistle to 
(d) Ep. 13. Tunc Convocato multaerum provinciarum occidentalium regionum sanctissimorum Episcoporum coetu, etc.  Ignatius, in which he only says, that he had called together very many Bishops out of many of the Western Provinces, and condemned Photius: So in his Epistle 
(e) Ap. Conc. VIII. act. 7. p. 1069.  to the Bishops and Clergy of the District of Constantinople. But in an Epistle to the Emperor 
(f) Ap. Acta Graeca Concilii VIII. p. 1211. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Michael, he uses Terms as general, as those above quoted, and tells him, that himself with all the Western Bishops had condemned Photius. The exact truth we learn from the 
(g) C. 9 p. 1417. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (so by many others Radoaldus is said to be deposed, together with Zacharias, though, in truth, he was not deposed in this Synod). 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.  Appendix of the Greek Acts of the 8 th' General Council: we have there the number of Bishops precisely set down, and they amount to no more than One hundred and seventy, tho' it is not at all to be doubted, but that the Pope did his utmost endeavour, and got as many Bishops together as possibly he could. It appears from this Testimony, how much the Vindicator is mistaken, when he Fancies that this Synod of the Pope exceeded the Photian Synod which it condemned, which consisted of Three hundred and Eighteen Bishops 
(h) P. 80. . P. Nicholas (says he) no doubt, made all the interest he could to get a Synod that he might oppose to this Synod of Photius. He knew his Authority alone would never be admitted for it without a Synod, and such● a Synod as the Canons required: And tho' he allowed no Superstition for the number (of Three hundred and Eighteen, the same with the number of the Nicene Council) yet the Antiochian Canon, which by this time obtained in both the Eastern and western Churches, required, that the Synod that must restore Ignatius, must at least be more numerous than the Synod that deprived him. No Synod therefore could serve his purpose, but such a one as must have had more than Three hundred and Eighteen Bishops. This, I suppose, made it some time before he could condemn Photius, or restore Ignatius with such a Synod. Tho' it be asserted by the Roman Legates, in the 8th. General Chuncil, that all the Western Archbishops, Metropolitans, etc. sat in that Synod, yet Binius (if I well remember) confesses, that there was only one Metropolitan there: but how he knew that, I know not.  
Seventhly, As Photius was by so many received, whilst the ejected Patriarch Ignatius was still living; so as soon as he was restored upon Ignatius' Death, tho' he was not ordained again, he was generally received by both the Metropolitans and Bishops of his own District, and likewise all the Patriarches. As soon as he was restored to his See, he sent a Synodical Letter to Pope john IX. the Successor of Hadrian, subscribed by 
(a) V. Ign. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  all the Metropolitans of the Constantinopolitan District, as appears from Nicetas; who, according to the Calumny so often made use of by Photius' Enemies, adds, that he got their Subscriptions by Deceit: The Metropolitans (says he) knowing nothing at all of the Matter, but believing that they had set their hands to a Deed of Conveyance. Pope john having received his Epistle, receives him as Patriarch, and sends away his Legates to Constantinople to the Gen. Council which the Emperor had summoned. An Abridgement of the Acts of that Council, as it was transcribed out of a Treatise of joannes Beccus, a Patriarch of Constantinople, Dr. Beverege has published in his Pandects. From the Acts of this Council I observe, That Pope john and the rest of the Patriarches and Bishops not only own Photius as a true Patriarch at that time, and make a Decree, That whosoever was rejected by Photius, should be likewise rejected by the Pope; and whoever was rejected by the Pope, should be likewise rejected by Photius; but also, that they owned him to have been a true Patriarch whilst Ignatius was living, from the very beginning. This is manifest concerning the Pope, from his Epistle to the Emperor Basilius, which is there extant. In that Epistle he calls those Synods, which were called against Photius, 
(b) P. 277. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  unjust Synods: And is so much ashamed of what had been done by those Synods, that he affirms, that his Predecessors Nicholas and Hadrian had no hand in 'em, and did not approve of what they decreed. He requires all Christians to receive him as a true Patriarch: And let no one (says he) allege for their excuse, those unjust Synods which were gathered against him. Let no one plead that (as some foolish Persons do believe) our blessed Predecessors, Nicholas and Hadrian, condemned him. For those things which were done against him, were not approved of by them. I know that these Words are not to be found in the Copy of this Epistle which the Popish Editors of the Councils have published out of the Vatican Library with the Title of Pope John's genuine Epistle: But 'tis much more probable that the Romanists corrupted that Epistle, than 
† Because mentions two Copies of this Epistle, a Greek one and a Latin one, both recorded in the Acts of this Council.  that this which we have quoted was corrupted by Photius. He likewise declares, that he received him by virtue of his first Promotion, in these words: 
(c) P. 278. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.  Because we through the care we have of the Peace of the Church, have received our most holy Brother Photius, as heretofore Pope Hadrian I. did his Uncle Tarasius (promoted, as Photius was, immediately from a Layman) it ought not to be made a Custom or Rule; for those things which are good only upon occasion, cannot be a Law to many. It appears also from that Epistle which the Romanists call his genuine Epistle, that the Pope did not require that Photius should be re-ordained, tho' by the Synods in which he was condemned he was declared a mere Layman. 2dly. I observe, that all that whole General Council, condemned all the Proceedings of the several Synods against him. 
(a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, p. 283.  We decree (says the Council) that the Synod called at Rome under the most blessed Pope Hadrian against the most holy Patriarch Photius, and the Synod gathered at Constantinople against the most holy Patriarch Photius, be to all intents and purposes condemned and cast out of the Church: That it be never reckoned as one of the holy Councils, nor ever called by the Name of a Council. God forbid it should. To this the whole Council of no less than 373 Bishops, and among them the Legates of the Pope, and all the other Patriarches, subscribe. And the Emperor Basilius, who had some Years before subscribed to the Council, that condemned and anathematised Photius, here subscribes, with the Princes his Sons, to 
(b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, p. 286, 287.  the renunciation of all things that had either been written or spoken against him.  
Notwithstanding all this, they that were heretofore great Sticklers for Ignatius, continued still Photius' Enemies, and refused to communicate with him. And lest Pope John's Authority should draw off some of their Party, they raise a Report that he did not receive Photius, but that he had 
(c) Breviarium Concilii VIII. ap. Append. Actorum Graecorum, pag. 1424.  condemned and deposed his Legates, Eugenius and Paul, for confirming Photius in that Council without his Order; and that from the 
(d) Append. eadem, pag. 1424.  Ambo he pronounced them Anathema who should think that Photius, when condemned by Pope Nicholas and Hadrian, was not condemned by the just judgement of God. But 'tis confessed by even 
(e) Ep. ad Steph. P. ibid. p. 1494.  Stylianus himself, that Photius was received by Pope john. He pretends that Paul and Eugenius were corrupted by Photius when sent by the Pope to Constantinople about another Business: That after that Photius forged a Paper in the Names of Ignatius and his Adherents, in which the Pope was desired to receive him. On this account (says he) the Pope sent to Constantinople another Legate 
(f) These are the three Roman Legates that sat in the Council above mentioned, as appears by the Acts.  Peter, who, together with Paul and Eugenius, proclaimed him received by the Pope.  
To all this I add, That our Patriarch Photius has all along to this time, been owned by the Greek Church to have been a true Patriarch of Constantinople, even before Ignatius' Death, when he was Patriarch the first time. This is manifest from hence, that the abovementioned Council, which condemned all the Synods, that were called against Photius, as unjust, is commonly owned by the Greeks, and called the 8 th'. General Council: and that which the Latins are wont to call by that Title (that in which Photius was condemned) the Greeks take no notice of. It appears moreover from hence, That the Canons which were made by the Photian Council, Entitled, The First and Second, by which Ignatius was condemned, have been all along received by the Church, as good Ecclesiastical Law, and as such are illustrated with the Comments of the Greek Canonists, Zonaras, Balsamon, etc. and the Council itself is honoured with the Title of 
(a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  the holy and great Constantinopolitan Council, First and Second.  
It appears from what hath been said, tho' it should be granted, that the Ignatians refused to own Photius, for this reason only, because Ignatius was uncanonically deposed, yet this Example would make more for us than for our Adversaries.  
I come now in the Fourth place to show, That that was not the only Reason, that Ignatius and his Adherents looked upon Photius to be on other Accounts, uncapable of being a true Patriarch, and that they allege other Reasons for their separating from him. Which are these,  
1. That he was a Neophytus; that he was ordained Patriarch contrary to the Canons, having gone through all the several Degrees in Six days time. This is every where urged against him, as a Reason why he ought not to be received as Patriarch, by P. Nicholas in his Epistles, who insists very largely upon it; by the 
(b) Libello lecto ap. Conc. VIII. p. 1184. & in 1. decreto ibid. act. 7. p. 1172. In which Decree, after Photius is declared deposed, and no Bishop, and Excommunicate, if he did not submit, it's immediately added; Vt hac unusquisque discens, nequaquam de caetero temer arià praesumptione ex Laitis subitò in Dominicis Castris, insperato quodammodo impetu irrepere audeat, & principatûs amore ante ducatum praestare velit, quam tyronis consuminet officium, & ante tentet docere quam discere.  Synod of Rome, under the other 
(c) Ap. Append. Actorum Graec. Concilii VIII. c. 10. p. 1420.  Roman Synod, under P. Hadrian; by the General Council of Constantinople, by which he was condemned; by the Patriarch 
(d) T●s●e Theognoste in Libello Nicolao P. oblato.  Ignatius himself before the Council of Constantinople, called First and Second; and by 
(e) Ep. ad Steph. P. ap. Append. Actorum Graec, Concilii VIII.  Stylianus Neocaesariensis. Anastasius Bibliothecarius 
(f) Pontificali. In sanctâ Constantinopolitanâ Ecclesiâ Schisma adoleverat, sc. quia ejecto ex ejusdon sede Ecclesiae Ignatio reverendissimo Patriarcha Photium ex Laicis & ex milit● consura●um contra reverendorum Canonum Statuta Neophytum subito inibi subrogaru●t Antistitem.  in his Life of P. Nicholas, where he mentions this Schism, gives us only this Reason for it, by which it appears, that he looked upon it to be, at least, the chief Reason, if not the only One. In the holy Constantinopolitan Church, (says he) there was a Schism, viz. because the most reverend Patriarch Ignatius being ejected, they substituted Photius a Layman, ordained suddenly, contrary to the Prescript of the Canons.  
2. That he was ordained by a Person not capable of Ordaining any one, viz. Gregory Archbishop of Syracuse, who (say they) was at that time deposed and stood Excommunicate, and actually engaged in a Schism. This Gregory of Syracuse had been first Deposed and Excommunicated by Benedict III. of Rome, and a Synod; (so some say, more truly by Pope Leo IU. and afterwards by Pope Benedict) and being at Constantinople when Ignatius was first made Patriarch, Ignatius 
(b) Vide Nicetam in Vitâ.  refused to permit him to be present at his Consecration. On that account he engaged in a Schism against him, and was Excommunicated likewise by him. When Ignatius was deposed, the Synod that Elected Photius, took off his Excommunication and restored him, and all that were engaged with him, to the Church; but this Absolution Ignatius, and his Party looked upon as perfectly Null: and consequently Photius was in their Judgement no Bishop. This Reason, why he ought not to be received as a Patriarch or Bishop, is alleged by 
(c) Ep. ad Orientales, ap. Conc. VIII. p. 1075, 1076, 1077.  Pope Nicholas, and very largely insisted on: he alleges that Gregory standing thus Excommunicated, Photius' Head was rather wounded, than consecrated by that Imposition of hands, and 
(d) Quamobremcogitate, fratres charissimi, tractate & vobiscum sedulâ meditatione perquirite, si stare Photius possit, etiamsi miris virtutibus polleat, etiamsi omni scientià fulgeat; quando qui hunc statuisse tentavit, dudum jam cecidit, & volens erigi, cum conantibus se erigere nunquam recuperaturus denuo ruit. Consideret ergo vestra divinitùs inspirata prudentia, quomodo Photius, etiamsi nihil aliud sibi jure valeat impedire, queat in Sacerdotali gradu persistere: quandoquidem instituter suus, cum hic ordinaretur, non solùm Sacerdotio, verùm & ipso carebat Christiano vocabulo.  denies, that he could be a Bishop being so ordained. It is also urged by the Synod of Rome, called by Pope Nicholas, in its Decrees against Photius, and by Stylianus Neocaesariensis. It was alleged by 
(e) Theognostus.  Ignatius himself to the Council, by which he was tried and condemned.  
3. That Photius himself was engaged in a Schism against Ignatius, before he was ordained, together with Gregory of Syracuse; and together with him excommunicated by Ignatius. This is urged as another Reason why he ought not to be owned as a Bishop by 
(f) Loc. supra cit.  Pope Nicholas, and 
(g) Loc. cit.  Ignatius himself, and Metrophanes Bishop of Smyrna in the 
(h) P. 1055. Et quod Schismaticus fuerit (Photius) antea multorum scandalorum autor effectus est, & multos ab Ecclesiasticâ Communione recedere fecerit, & ultroneus ac volens consecrari à Gregorio proposuerit, nullâ in hoc necessitate impulsus.  Eighth General Council, and by the Author of the 
(i) C. XI. p. 1424.  Appendix to the Greek Acts of that Council. And this is the first Objection made against him in the Decrees of Pope Nicholas' 
(k) Ap. Epist. Nicholai P. ad Episc. & Clerum Constantinopol. lectam in Conc. VIII. act. 7. p. 1171. Photius qui ex Schismaticorum, & se à sancta Communionis participatione avertentium parte esse dignosectur, etc.  Synod.  
To all this I add, (and this I desire, our Adversaries would be pleased to take special notice of) That Ignatius, when he was tried by the great Council of Constantinople freely professed before the Council, That if Photius 
(a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉?  had not been out of the Church, i. e. if he had not been a Schismatic and Excommunicate, when he was made Patriarch, he would not have opposed him, but would willingly have pselded to him, But an alien (said he) from Christ, how shall I make a Pastor of the Sheep of Christ? That Ignatius made this Declaration before that Council, he himself witnesses (or what is the same thing, his Legate Theognostus for him) in his case presented to Pope Nicholas. And by its being there mentioned it appears he was still of that mind. It is likewise attested by the Author of the Epistle entitled, An Epistle of Metrophanes the Metropolite (of Smyrna) to Manuel Patricius, That at that time that Photius was consecrated Patriarch, the deposed Patriarch Ignatius gave his free consent, that another should be chosen in his place, provided he were of the Church, not engaged in a Schism or Excommunicate: Photius (says 
(b) Append. Act. Graec. Concilii VIII. p. 1385.  that Author) whilst he was a Layman, separated himself from the Church, and was excommunicated. And, whilst he was under those Circumstances, he was nominated Patriarch by Bardas'. He than adds (as has been already observed) That the Bishops rejected him, and pitched on three others, but all save five were at last brought over to Photius. Now (says he) when we perceived that the generality of the Bishops were corrupted, we thought fit (he either was, or pretends to have been one of those five) to restore him to the Church, and to the Patriarch's Communion, that we might not transgress the Patriarch's Commands 
(c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. , who had commanded that we should choose such a one Patriarch as was a Member of the Church.  
It is natural for Readers to desire Variety, and 'tis irksome to be long on one Subject. And they that are weary of being so long in the same Company, may here, if they please, take their leave of Ignatius, and turn to the other fresh Company. But for those who are not weary of this Entertainment, I shall add these following Remarks.  
1. I observe, that Ignatius and his Adherents did no more regard the Determinations of Synods, than they did the Imperial Authority. When the Suffrages of a Council were once gained (says 
(d) P. 79.  the worthy and learned Vindicator) what Arts soever those were that were used to gain 'em, Photius had then some appearance of Right, till Ignatius could relieve himself by another, and a greater Council. That was a lawful way of recovering it by the very Canons. However, Photius could in the mean time plead the Canons of his own Council, (which condemned Ignatius, and forbade the Clergy and Bishops to separate from their present Patriarch) that none ought to separate from himself, thus Synodically settled, nor to join with Ignatius, thus Synodically condemned, till himself were condemned, and Ignatius resettled by a greater and a more numerous Synod.— Till P. Nicholas (says the Vindicator a little after) had restored Ignatius by a greater Synod than that was, that condemned him, how good soever his Tible was, yet the Gild of Schism had been imputable to Ignatius, if he had made a Separation, or intruded himself into his own Throne, before a Synod had restored him. Nay by the Antiochian Canon, he had forfeited all Pretensions of having the merit of his Cause considered, if he had challenged any Duty from his Clergy and People before a Synod had restored him. He adds, that by the Canons of the Church, a Provincial Synod of Rome, could not condemn or restore a Patriarch of Constantinople; and therefore the Synod called at Rome by P. Nicholas, how numerous soever it might be, could not have any Authority to depose Photius, and restore Ignatius: that Photius therefore was the Canonical Patriarch of Constantinople, till he was deposed by a Synod called at Constantinople, that was greater than that which deposed Ignatius. The Synod (says he) by which Ignatius was to be relieved, was to be another, and that a greater Synod in the same Constantinople, and till he could get such a Synod on his side, himself had been responsible for the Schism, that must have followed on his claiming his Right. Thus much the Vindicator: And thus (tho' he does not know it) he perfectly condemns Ignatius, and all his Adherents, as men not regarding the Rules of Ecclesiastical Government, but hurried away by their own Passions to Schismatical Proceedings. We do not find (says he) that Ignatius made any stir after he was deposed by a Synod of Constantinople, till he was restored Conciliarly in the same place, where he had been deprived. No? Then sure he never could find, that he made any stir at all. There is nothing can be more notorious than that Ignatius, never paid any deference to the Authority of those Synods that condemned him. That he looked upon himself as Patriarch, as well after he was condemned by Synods, as before; appears, First from hence, That after he had been condemned by a Provincial Synod, when he was summoned to appear before the General Council, called First and Second, he asked those, that summoned him, under what Character they would have him appear, as a Bishop, as a Priest, or as a Monk? And when it was told him, that he might appear as himself in his own Conscience thought fit, he put on his Patriarchial Robes, and was going to the Council in 'em, till Messengers from the Emperor met him, and commanded him to put 'em off, or it should cost him his Life.  
This Account we have in his Life. 2. When he made his appearance before that Council, he declared against their Authority, and positively told 'em that they could not be his judges, except they first deposed Photius. This his Legate Theognostus attests in his Case presented to Pope Nicholas. 3. After he was condemned by this great Council, he still continued to suffer the same Afflictions and Torments as before; and why was he still tormented and persecuted, but because he was still the same Man? A Description of what he suffered, even after he was deposed by that Council, you may see at large in his Life. Theognostus likewise speaks of 'em. So P. Nicholas' Synod alleges in its 
(a) Ap. Conc. VIII. p. 1171.  Decrees against Photius, that he still continued to that very time, to torment Ignatius, and to depose and punish those Bishops that would not join with him. So likewise P. Nicholas in his XIth. Epistle to Photius. 4. As soon as the Emperor Basilius had deposed Photius, tho' Photius as yet had never been condemned by a Council called at Constantinople, nor yet by any called any where else, that was greater than that which had confirmed him, Ignatius readily accepts of the See, and not only so, but condemns and 
(a) Nicetas V. Ign. p. 1232.  rejects both Photius, and all those whom he had Ordained, as no Bishops? 5. So far were the Ignatians from regarding the Authority of Synods, that even after Ignatius' Death, tho' Photius had been again confirmed by a General Council of no less than 373 Bishops, yet they 
(b) Ibid. p. 1256.  still continued their Schism, and refused to Communicate. Nay, even after Photius was a Second time deposed, and even after his Death, some of 'em still refused to receive those whom Photius had Ordained. And the Schism does not seem to have been perfectly ended, till the Tomus Vnionis, or Synodicon was published in the Year 920. by which there was an end likewise put to several other Divisions in the Church.  
Secondly, I observe that Ignatius, and all his Party were great betrayers of the Privileges of the Constantinopolitan See. That he might regain his See, he cared not for the Honour of it, but Acted very unworthily of a truly great Man, and 
(c) Theognostus.  appeals from the Council of Constantinople, to the Pope of Rome. Thus betrays the Honour of his See, and Acts quite contrary to the Canons of the II. General Council: by which it is Enacted, 
(d) Can. 2.  That the Affairs of every Province shall be managed by a Synod of that same Province.  
Thirdly, In the Third and last place, it is to be observed, that the Reason why the Popes of Rome, engaged so zealously against Photius, and for the ejected Ignatius, was chiefly, because they thought it concerned the Honour of their See. The Pope took upon him to be the chief Judge in Causes relating to Bishops, and to suffer the Emperor to Depose a Patriarch, was to give away (forsooth!) his own Supereminent Prerogative. That all the Proceedings of the Popes in this Matter, were grounded chiefly on their Pride and Ambition, may be easily gathered from their so frequently 
(e) Vide Nicholai P. Epistolam 2. & 8. ad Michaelem Imp. Epistolam ad Photium ap. Conc. VIII. p. 1031, 1032. Epistolam ad Episcopos & Clerum Constantinop. ib. act. 7. Synodum Rom. ib. p. 1074. Verba Hadriani P. II. in Synodo suâ ap. Conc. VIII. p. 1091. Stephani P. VI Ep. ad Basilium Imp. & aliam ejusdem ad Stylianum Neocaes. etc.  inculcating their Prerogative of being the ultimate Judges of all Bishops, in the Epistles which they wrote concerning this Business; from their so frequently inculcating, That a Bishop ought not to be deposed by any Authority whatever, whether Imperial or Synodical, without the Consent of the See of S. Peter. Because (says P. Nicholas in an Epistle to the Emperor Michael) you (the Synod of Constantinople) 
(f) At quia nunc Photium retinentes, prudentissimum virum Ignatium Patriarcham absque nostri Apostolatûs judicio, ejecistis, nôsse vos ●mnimodis volumus nullatenus nos Photium recipere vel. Ignatium Patriarcham damnare. Ap. Conc. VIII. act. 4. p. 1019.  have deposed the Patriarch Ignatius, and confirmed Photius in his See without the Authority of our Apostleship, We give you to understand, that we do not either receive Photius, or condemn Ignatius. And to the Eastern Patriarches and Bishops, in his Circular Epistle, We require you (says he) not to give your Assent to the Synod called against Ignatius, but to Act according to our Sentence. And these things we write, not fearing at all least we may have judged amiss. For the See of S. Peter is not to be judged by any one, except by him who gave Peter the Keys of the Kingdom. And do you, that you may observe the ancient Customs, neither judge nor approve of any thing without our Authority.  
We have now done with the Patriarch Ignatius, but not yet with Photius. He affords us another Example; for tho' he was received by the Church, and confirmed by a General Council, yet as soon as Leo Sapiens, upon his Father Basilius' Death, had obtained the Empire, he was presently deposed (a second time) by the Imperial Authority. He being thus deposed, the Emperor's Brother Stephen 
(a) A very young Man; for it appears by Leo Gram. p. 470. that he was a Child, and baptised within twenty Years before, viz. after his Father Basilius was Emperor. , was preferred to his See, and was owned and received by the Church. This the Author of the Baroccian Treatise observes. 'Tis observed by the Vindicator, in Answer to that Treatise that Photius was not deposed by the Emperor Leo, but resigned. And this he proves from an Epistle of P. Stephen V. ad Episcopos Orient. in which the Pope says, that in a Letter the Emperor had told him, that 
(b) In the Greek Epistle ap. Append. Actorum Graec. Concilii VIII. p. 1408. he says, That the Emperor had told him, that Photius had given in a Resignation written with his own hand.  Photius quietam vitam elegit. Stylianus and a Synod had written to the Pope to acquaint him, that Photius for certain Crimes was deposed by the Emperor Leo; the Emperor in a Letter of his own, had told the Pope that Photius had resigned: this made the Pope write that Letter to Stylianus, and the rest of the Bishops to know of him, how it came to pass, that they so contradicted one another. Stylianus and the rest of those Bishops, tell him in their Answer, that they that owned Photius as a Bishop, had sent him word that he had resigned: but, as for themselves, they did not own him to have been ever a Bishop; and therefore it was that they did not say he had resigned. This confirms what the Vindicator contends for. But notwithstanding all this, it is not true, that Photius resigned. To me it is certain, that he was turned out by the Emperor; The Reason why the Emperor pretended to the Pope that Photius had resigned, was because he dared not tell him, that he himself had deposed him. That he knew the Pope would never approve of, it being in the Judgement of the Popes of those times, the Prerogative of the See of S. Peter to depose a Bishop. And the reason why Stylianus and his Bishops writ after that manner in their Answer to the Pope; was, because if they had told the truth, it was like to occasion a great Disturbance in the Church. For the 
(c) Quare nos absque diligenti totius rei indagatione nullam possismus sententiam proffer. Quaprepter & nuper sententiam distulimus; & opportet ut ab utraque parte reverendissimi Episcopi legati mittantur, ut omni discussa dubitatione, veritatéque ex omnibus partibus explorata, quod Deus suggesserit judicare possimus.  Pope had positively declared in his Epistle to 'em, that he would not give his Consent, that Photius should be turned out without his special Concurrence. But this you will say, is only Conjecture. What greater Autorities have we, that Photius was truly deposed? I. Answer, we have many.  
1. That Photius was deposed by the Emperor Leo is positively asserted by all Historians. The Emperor (says 
(a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.  Joel) for certain Reasons deposed Photius, and made his own Brother Stephen Patriarch. Glycas 
(b) P. 298. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. : The Emperor Leo, being resolved to be revenged on Santabarenus (Bishop of Euchaita, who had set his Father against him) chooses first to depose the Patriarch Photius, because it was likely he would take Santabarenus 's part; for there was a report, that Photius had conspired with Santabarenus to advance one of his own Family to the Empire. Zonaras. Leo as soon as he was made Emperor, was forthwith bend upon revenge against Santabarenus. But suspecting that the Patriarch Photius, who was his Friend, would take his part, he 
(c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.  invents Accusations against the Patriarch, and thrusts him out of the Church, and banishes him to the Monastery of the Armeniaci.  
2. By other Historians he is not only said to be deprived by the Emperor; but there is likewise a particular Relation given of the manner. And in one and the same Relation, they all unanimously agree. The Anonymous Continuator of the Emperor Constantinus Porphyrogennetus' History, gives us this account of it. The Emperor 
(d) P. 218. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.  (says he) sent Andrew the Captain of his Guards, with Joannes Hagiopolites, to the Church of S. Sophia: who there went up into the Ambo, and in the hearing of all read the Accusations against the Patriarch Photius, and expelled him out of his See, and banished him to the Monastery of the Armoniani. And the Emperor makes his own Brother Stephen, the Syncellus, Patriarch; who was ordained by Theophanes, Metropolitan of Caesarea, and continued Patriarch Six years, and Five months, then died.  
The Emperor (says 
(e) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.  Leo Grammaticus, sent Andrew the Captain of his Guard, and Joannes Hagiopolites the Logotheta Dromi: who went up into the Ambo of the Church, and there read Accusations against Photius the Patriarch, and deposed him, and thrust him into the Monastery of the Armeniani.— and promoted his own Brother Stephen to the Throne, who was ordained a little before Christmas, by Theophanes the first Metropolitan (of Caelarea) and the rest of the Bishops. The same Leo tells us, that Photius 
(a) P. 472. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  died in Banishment. The Emperor Leo (says Georgius Cedrenus) being come to the Throne, immediately resolved to be revenged on Santabarenus: and first of all, he set upon Photius to depose him, because he knew that if he continued Patriarch, he would defend Santabarenus, and besides, there was a report, that Photius had conspired with Santabarenus, to destroy him, and to advance one of his own Family to the imperial Throne. He accordingly sent Andreas, etc. Having told us how he was deposed and banished, agreeing exactly with the Authors already quoted, he adds, that Stephen was 
(b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  immediately constituted in his Room.  
3. It appears by the Minutes of the Trial of Photius and Santabarenus, which happened a little after Photius was ejected, that Photius had never resigned. 'Twas expected at that Trial, (which, by the by, was only before Lay-Lords) That Santabarenus would have accused Photius of High Treason; and he was asked by one of the Judges concerning a Promise he had made the Emperor to accuse him; upon which he fell down upon his Knees before Photius, with these words: 
(c) P. 219. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  My Lord, I conjure you by God, to depose me and degrade me from my Priesthood, and then let 'em punish me as a Malefactor, for I never told the Emperor any such thing. To which Photius made this Answer; By the Salvation of my Soul, my Lord Theodorus, you are an Archbishop, both in this World and in the World to come. Thus the Continuator of Constantinus Porphyrogennetus, Leo Grammamaticus, and Cedrenus. By Santabarenus' desiring Photius to depose him, it is very manifest, that he accounted him his Patriarch, and that Photius looked upon himself as such, may be gathered from his Answer.  
4. It's asserted by all the three Authors last quoted, That the Emperor was extremely enraged at that disappointment 
(d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Leo Gram. , because he could not get a sufficient Accusation against the Patriarch: If he had resigned, what should make the Emperor so malicious against him? The Accusations for which he had been deposed, were thought insufficient, the Emperor therefore, endeavoured to have other and greater things made out against him, that he might not be accused of Injustice in deposing him.  
5. It appears from the Emperor's own express words in his Speech which he made to Stylianus and other Bishops, etc. after he had deposed Photius, that Photius did not resign, but was properly deposed. The Speech is recorded in the Appendix to the Greek Acts of the VIII Council. The Author of that Appendix having first asserted in his own words, That the Emperor 
(a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, p. 1397.  expelled Photius for his Crimes, adds, That having called Stylianus and many others, whom Photius had persecuted, together, he spoke these words to 'em 
(b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. , Our Imperial Majesty, which proceeds from God, having wellweighed and considered the matter, has driven that wicked Man from his Throne, and delivered you from your Persecution, etc.  
I take no notice of what the Vindicator says, concerning the new Patriarch Stephen, that since he was brought up and instructed by Photius, it is not likely that he would have accepted of the See, if Photius had not resigned. There is no strength in that. Ambition, or obedience to the Emperor his Brother, might be a sufficient Motive.  
By what I but now observed concerning Santabarenus, it should seem that he did not at the time of that Trial, own the Patriarch Stephen. But tho' He, as Photius' Creature and very great Friend, did not at that time own him: yet certain it is, that the Church in general did. Hence in the Synodicon, or Tomus Vnionis, which was published in the Year 920. 
(c) Apud jus Graeco-Rom. producitur idem locus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ex (libello) Synodico, non à Synodico consessu quod vertit claris. Interpres, ap. Pandect. Bevereg. tom. 2. p. 292.  May the Memory of Ignatius, Photius, Stephanus, Antonius, Nicholaus, the most holy Patriarches, be everlasting. Whatsoever has been either written, or spoken against the most holy Patriarches Germanus, Nicephorus, and Methodius, Ignatius, Photius, Stephanus, Antoninus, be Anathema. 'Tis true, that there was some Schism on his Account, may be gathered from this very thing, because his Name is in that Tome: But than it does not appear, that that Schism was occasioned by his being put into Photius' place. We know that he had been ordained Deacon by Photius, we likewise know, that there were some in his time, that refused to own any that had been ordained by Photius: and this I take to be the true Reason, why Stephen is mentioned in the Tome: the rather because even his Successor Antonius, whose Circumstances were not the same, is likewise mentioned. They were both (I suppose) disowned by such as did not allow of Photius' Ordinations. We must not forget, that Leo Grammaticus has told us, that the Patriarch Stephen was consecrated Patriarch, by the chief Metropolitan of the District, and the rest of the Bishops, i.e. by a great many.  
I shall conclude this Chapter, or rather Dissertation, concerning Photius, with the Testimony of Aretas, Archbishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia; from which it may appear, not only that he was accounted an excellent Man, but that he was likewise violently deposed. Aretas in an Oration, which he made at the Sepulchre of Euthymius Patriarch of Constantinople, who was deposed Twenty five Years after Photius' last Deprivation, and was used so barbarously, as that he died a little after, 
(a) O potestatem Pontificum Dei, quae unà cum iis, qui virtutis causà perpessi injurias sunt, laetitia exultas, unà cum Abel invidiae obnoxia es, unà cum antiquo illo Iacob ab aemulis assidue vexaris, unà cum Zacharia jugularis, unà cum jacobo in gratioam judaeorum mactaris, unà cum D. Athanasio è sedibus tuis exturbaris, unà cum Paulo exilii pedicis, quemadmodum hic confessionis, honestaris unà cum Nicephoro (ab Imp. Leone Armeno violenter ejecto) ac PHOTIO, viris clarissimis, fugis ac mortibus decoraris, etc.  O the Power (says he) of the High-priests of God, That rejoicest with those that have suffered Injuries for the sake of Virtue, that with Abel art obnoxious to Envy, That, as Jacob heretofore, art constantly tormented by Competitors, That art murdered as James was for the sake of the Jews, That with the holy Athanasius art thrust out of thy Throne, With Paul (Patriarch of Constantinople) art adorned with the Schackles of Banishment, and, as this holy Patriarch, by the Bonds of a Confessor, That together with Nicephorus and PHOTIUS, those most famous ●en, art graced with Expulsions and Deaths.   

CHAP. XV.  
Nicolaus Mysticus, Patriarch of Constantinople; not deprived by a Synod, as the Vindicator contends, but by the Emperor (Leo the Wise) §. 1. Joseph Bishop of Brixia in Italy deposed without any Synod by King Berengarius, yet his Successor Antony is owned and received by the Church, particularly by the Pope, the Synods of Augspurg and Ravenna; and continued in the See many years. §. 2. Basilius Camaterus, and Nicetas Muntanes, Patriarches of Constantinople, deposed without any Synod by the Emperor Isaacius Angelus, yet no Division in the Church on their account. §. 3, 4. The Patriarches of the present Greek Church very frequently deprived by the Turk, yet no Division in the Church. As great Reason to submit to the present Possessor here, as in the Greek Church. The Necessity the same.  
AFter the Death of the Patriarch Stephen, Antonius Cauleas succeeded in the See of Constantinople, and after his Death Nicolaus Mysticus, or the Secretary of State, was made Patriarch. In his time the Emperor Leo, contrary to the Canons of the Church, married a fourth Wife, for which he excommunicated him; and because he refused to take off the Excommunication, was deposed by him.  
The Vindicator would needs persuade us, that he was not deposed by the Emperor, but by a Synod: The Author he quotes for it is Eutychius or Said Ebn Batrick, who is so far from affirming, and likewise from intimating, what the Vindicator contends for, that he 
(a) Annal. Arab. to. 2. p. 484. Porro cum Leoni Imp. Romano mortua esset Vxor nullâ relictâ prole, aliam ille uxorem ducere voluit; at prohibuit ipsum Nicolaus Patriarcha Constantinopolitanus, dicens, Non est tibi licitum uxorem ducere; siquidem Anagnostes es & precibus Sacerdotum consecratus; quod si uxorem duxeris non licet tibi ad altare accedere. Cui Leo; Vxorem ducere cupio quò sit mihi filius qui p●st me regnum haereditario possid●at. At non permisit ipsi Patriarcha conjugium. Scripsit ergo Leo Imp. ad Patriarcham Romanum, Michaelem Patriarcham Alexandrinum, Eliam Mansuri F. Patriarcham Hierosolymitanum, & Symeonem Zarnaki F. Antiochenum, rogans ut ad ipsum accederent, quò dispicerent, liceret, necue ipsi uxorem ducere: At noluit eorum quispiam ad ipsum accedere, nisi quòd singuli nomine suo Legatum mitterent. Ac Legatis se adjungentes Episcopi quidam Constantinopolitaniss, de negotio Imperatoris dispicientes, matrimonium ipsi licitum pronunciarunt: quare uxorem duxit, natúsque est ipsi filius quem Constantinum appellavit. Cúmque Nicolaum Patriarcham Cathedrâ abdicasset, constitutus est ipsius loco Anthimus (Euthymius) Patriarcha Constantinopolitanus. 'Tis plain that Eutychius makes the Synod to sit before Constantinus (Porphyrogennetus) was begot, and Nicolaus to be deprived (as indeed he was) after he was born: and besides he expressly says that the Emperor did it.  plainly intimates the contrary. But whatever Authors the Vindicator thinks fit to make use of, we know the Authority of Eutychius to be so contemptible, and we know him to be so erroneous, particularly in what he says relating to the Emperor Leo and the Patriarch Nicolaus, That, though he makes directly against the Vindicator, yet we scorn to produce him as a Witness. Neither indeed have we need. That the Patriarch Nicolaus was deposed by the Emperor, is positively asserted by the Emperor's Son, Constantinus Porphyrogennetus. He says 
(a) Praef. ad Tomum Unionis apud Ius Graeco-Rom. p. 104.  his Father deposed him as a Liar and a perjured Man, because he had several times promised and sworn that he would absolve him, and yet refused to do it. We have other very good and authentic Writers that give us so particular an account of the whole matter, that there's nothing can be more manifest, than that there was not any Synod concerned. The Historian Leo Grammaticus, after a Relation given us of the Emperor's being excommunicated, adds, That Samonas, a very ill Man, being made the Gentleman of the Bedchamber 
(b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. , the Emperor and He laid their Heads together to depose the Patriarch; and sending for him on the first of February, desired him to restore 'em to the Church: Which when he refused to do, they ordered him to be put into a Boat and to be carried to Hieria, from whence he went on foot through the Snow to Galacreni. In his place Euthymius the Syncellus was ordained. So word for word the 
(c) Pag. 228.  Anonymous Continuator of Constantinus Porphyrogennetus. And 
(d) Pag. 602.  Georgius Cedrenus agrees exactly with 'em. Neither does Zondras differ from 'em. 
(e) Annal. l. 16. c. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Samonas (says he) urged the Emperor to do many things against his Duty, among other things to force the Patriarch to absolve him. The Emperor therefore sending for the Patriarch, desired to be absolved: which the Patriarch refusing to do, he was immediately carried over to Iria, from whence they led him on foot to the Monastery in Galacrenae which he himself had built, after he had governed the Church XI. Years. And Euthymius the Syncellus was made Patriarch.  
But the Knot that the Vindicator would cut, I will fairly untie for him. The whole Truth is this: The Patriarch Nicolaus was first deposed by the Emperor, but, before Euthymius was made Patriarch in his room, he resigned; tho' he does not seem to have regarded his Resignation. That he did resign, I gather from the 
(a) Haud it a multò post vehemens Ecclesiam tempestas invasit, quam ejus, cujus tum mann gubervacula erant, temeraria arrogantia excitarat: in quo quidem tumultu cum Autor ejus ille qui suerat, animum despondisset, eóque sacri sui honoris repudii libellum Ecclesi● dedisset, malus malè abiit. Aderat unus is (Euthymius) idoneus, qui desertum id áb eo munus susciperet.  Oration which Aretas, Archbishop of Caesarea, spoke in praise of Euthymius: which the Vindicator does not seem to have read. But since of our own accord we give away this Example, to what purpose has there been so much said concerning it? To that I answer: That I therefore thought fit to lay open this Error of the Vindicator, not because I have thereby demonstrated a Truth: For in a Treatise which should be Logical, to endeavour to make out an impertinent Truth, is to discover either want of judgement, or want of Argument: But because the Vindicator does not seem, methinks, to have discovered any great Ingenuity in what he says, concerning Nicolaus' Deprivation. Since he thought fit to quote so bad an Author as Eutychius, one that he himself perfectly contemns, how came it to pass that he did not think fit to tell his Reader what the Authentic Greek Authors say? It is certain he had read 'em▪ But he knew not how to answer this Example without a little of Shuffle. He knew that the good Greek Authors made directly against his Evasion. The Cause I have undertaken to defend, does not need any Disingenuities. If it did, I should leave it to some other to be its Vindicator.  
§. 2. In the Year 950, or 951, joseph (by some called Gonfus) Bishop of Brixia in Italy, was deposed by the Tyrannical King Berengarius without any manner of Synod, as 
(b) Hist. sui temporis l. 5. c. 13. Hoc in tempore Ioseph quidam moribus senex, diebus juvenis, Civitatis Brixianae clarebat Episcopus. Quem Berengarius, ut erat Dei tyrrannus vehemens, ob morum probitatem Episcopatu privavit: Ejúsque loco Antonium, qui nunc usque superest, nullo Consilio habito nullâ Episcoporum deliberatione constituit.  Luitprandus Ticinensis, who flourished 
(c) Cap. seq.  immediately after in Berengarius' Court, as his Secretary, expressly attests. Tho' joseph was thus deposed, yet Antony, whom the King made Bishop in his room, was owned and received by the Church. This appears; first, from Luitprandus, who says he was at that time Bishop of Brixia when he wrote his History. Qui nunc usque superest. By which he must mean that he still continued Bishop of Brixia to that time. For if he had been deposed at that time, he would have mentioned it, not have used those words. 2. From the Preface to the Decrees of the Synod of Augspurg, held in the Year 952, in which our 
(d) Antonio Brixiensis Ecclesiae Episcopo. Concil. to. 9 p. 635.  Antony Bishop of Brixia is reckoned among the Bishops that sat in that Synod. 3. From the Subscriptions of the Council of Ravenna, held in the Year 967, in which we read: 
(e) Ibid. p. 678.  Antonius Brixiensis Ecclesiae Episcopus consensi & subscripsi. 4. From the Subscriptions to Pope john the thirteenth's 
(f) Ibid. p. 676.  Diploma against Heroldus Archbishop of Salisburg, sent to the Bishops of that Council, and by them subscribed; among whom he is one.  
§. 3. In the Reign of Isaacius Angelus, who was Emperor but nine Years, began 1185, and ended 1194, there were at least three Patriarches deposed without any Synod. The Emperor Isaacius Angelus (says the Author of the Baroccian Treatise) finding Basilius Camaterus in the Patriarchal Chair, deposed him without any just cause, and promoted Nicetas the Chaplain of the Church to the See. In Answer to this, the Vindicator tells us, That the Reason why he was deprived was a Matter of Ecclesiastical Cognisance, and therefore 'tis probable that he was deposed by a Synod. But what says Nicetas Choniates in his History of Isaacius Angelus? He plainly intimates the contrary, that he was violently deposed by the Emperor 
(a) L. 2. n 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. : As the violence (says he) and power of Emperor is not wont to be restrained till they have altered and changed all things, both divine and human, according to their pleasure; so Isaacius, when he came to the Crown, deposed Basilius Camaterus from the Patriarchal Chair, tho' he had been the chief Instrument in his promotion to the Imperial Crown. The Reason pretended, was, That he had freed those noble Women from their confinement, whom (the late Emperor) Andronicus had made Nuns against their Wills. In his room he substituted Nicetas Muntanes, the Chaplain of the great Church. The same account we have in Nicephorus Callisti his MS. Catalogue of the Patriarches of Constantinople. He tells us that 
(b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ... (Mr. Dodwel in a Transcript of his reads, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Dr. Langbain, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; to me it seems to be something like this, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Basilius Camaterus was made Patriarch by Andronicus and deposed by Isaacius Angelus that he might not crown another Emperor after he had crowned him: But the Emperor's pretence (says he) was this, That he had given a Lady who had thrown off her (Nuns) habit which she had been forced to put on, his Benediction. Of any Division in the Church on the account of this Deprivation, there is no mention made. And the same is true of the Instance following.  
§. 4. After a little time Nicetas himself was deposed as unfit to govern by reason of his Old age. The Vindicator tells us from the Catalogue of Patriarches that is extant in the Ius Graeco-Romanum, that Nicetas resigned: But what says Nicetas Choniates, a much better Author? He tells us expressly that he was deposed by the Emperor against his will. But neither (says 
(a) Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  he) did the Emperor suffer this Man, so old as he was, to die Patriarch; but alleging, that by reason of his age and simplicity, he was not fit to be Patriarch, he expelled him the See against his will. And that he did not resign, may be confirmed from Nicephorus Callisti his M S. Catalogue of Patriarches: For he mentions that his Successor Leontius resigned, but of Nicetas he says no such thing: If he had known any such thing, he would doubtless have mentioned it, since he takes care to tell us that his Successor did so; and since he takes care likewise to tell us, that Camaterus' Predecessor, and several others, did so. I here observe that the Greek Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is used concerning the Patriarch Nicetas in the Catalogue of the Ius Graeco-Romanum, tho' it properly denotes a Resignation, yet was used sometimes for amisit, he lost his Bishopric. It seems to be used in this sense by Nicephorus Callisti in his M S. Catalogue, where he speaks concerning Dositheus Patriarch of jerusalem, his being translated from the See of jerusalem to that of Constantinople, and of his being deposed at Constantinople, because Translations from one See to another were repugnant to the Canons. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Which Nicetas Choviates expresses after this manner. He was deposed (says he) at Constantinople, and suffered in the same manner with Aesop ' s Dog, being deprived of the See of Constantinople, and losing likewise that of Jerusalem, which was then possessed by another.  
§. 5. After these times we read of no Patriarch deposed by the Emperor's bare Authority, as long as Constantinople was in the hands of the Christians. For Leontius, Nicetas' Successor was not barely deposed by the Emperor, but after he was deposed, resigned. What the Condition of the Patriarches of Constantinople and the other Eastern Patriarches, has all along been, and is to this day, under the Turks; that there are few Patriarches of Constantinople that die possessed of their See, few that are not deprived by the Grand Seignior's bare Authority, is too notorious to be proved. We have reason to believe, that for these 230 Years, from the time of joasaphus Cusas, the third Patriarch after Constantinople was taken by the Turks, who was deposed by the Sultan Mahomet the Great, there has been no space of time without several Patriarches alive together: And 'tis very notorious, that in the Years 1669, and 1670, there were no less than 
(b) Dr. Smith in his account of the Greek Church, p. 81, 82, 83. See Grelot's Voyage to Constantinople, p. 138, 139, 140.  four or five Patriarches of Constantinople living.  
The Examples of these Patriarches of the present Greek Church, I do not here mention, as if I thought they deserved for their Learning or Wisdom to be Guides and Patterns to the Bishops of England: But this is the use I would make of it. I would fain know of our Adversaries, Whether they think an ejected Patriarch of Constantinople would do well, if, after he was deposed, he should separate from the Communion of his Successor, and make a Division in the Church? I can hardly believe but that such a Separation would be condemned by even our Adversaries themselves. And how then can they justify their own Separation, they who refuse to communicate with their Successors, because they themselves are deposed by the Secular Power? There is one Question more, to which I desire a positive Answer: It is certain, that when the Patriarch of Constantinople is deposed by the Sultan, the Church submits immediately to the Successor, without ask the Old Patriarch's leave: Whether he will give his Consent or not, she is not at all concerned. Now this is the Question I would ask: Is the Greek Church therefore Schismatical? If the ejected Patriarch should actually lay claim to his See, would the Church be Schismatitical for adhering to the present Possessor? If, they say, it would not: Why then are We Schismatics in adhering to our present Possessors? Will they say that the Greeks lie under a greater Necessity? So one of our Adversaries seems to intimate. I cannot see (says 
* Unity of Priesthood, p. 39  he) that either the Case of the Jews in our Saviour's time, or the Case of the present Greek Church runs parallel to ours; for the Jews for many years before had been under the Roman Yoke, and so have the Greeks for many Centuries of years under the Turks; both despoiled of their Rights and Customs, and so far at Mercy, that it was well for the Jew that he could have any Priest, and for the Greeks that they have any Christianity. But our Author does not consider, that the Question may be asked as well concerning those jews who first submitted to a Highpriest put in by the Romans, and concerning those Greeks who first submitted to a Patriarch, ordained in the place of another deposed by the Turk, as concerning the jews in our Saviour's time, or the Greeks of these times. Neither does he consider, that the lastingness of an Oppression adds nothing at all to the strength of a present Necessity: If Necessity will excuse an Action a hundred Years after the beginning of an Oppression, 'twould as well excuse in the very beginning of it. 'Tis as strong in the beginning as afterwards. But the jews (says our Author) were at the Mercy of the Romans, and the present Greeks are at the Mercy of the Turks. We grant it: and that's the Necessity we plead. How does that make our Case not to be parallel? Is not the Church of England as much at the Mercy of the King and Parliament here, as the jews were at the Mercy of the Romans, or as the Greeks are at the Mercy of the Turk? Is not the King and Parliament as powerful here, as the Romans in judaea, or the Grand Signior at Constantinople? If Necessity will excuse them; our Necessity is the same, and that will justify us.   

CHAP. XVI.  
The Sentence of an Uncanonical Synod, esteemed by the Ancients invalid. S Chrysostom Patriarch of Constantinople, unjustly and invalidly deposed by a Synod He declares however at first, against all Separation from the Church on his Account. He afterwards yields to Resentment, and refuses to Communicate with his Successors, Arsacius, and Atticus, because they had been his Enemies, and had a hand in his Deprivation. The Joannites acted by their Passions, not by Principles. They separate from the Church, not because there was another made Patriarch in S. Chrysostom's place, but before that was done. Arsacius being made Patriarch they refuse to Communicate with him, not because he was put into S. Chrysostom's place, but through Hatred against St. Chrysostom's Deposers, because they frequented his Churches. Pope Innocent of Rome, not consistent with himself. His Practice contradicts his Words. He did not think Arsacius and Atticus no Bishops. His Zeal for the Honour of his own See, the chief Cause of his Opposing 'em. He at last receives Atticus as a true Patriarch: The Vindicator's Exception against the Translation of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Barroccian Treatise, confuted. The Eastern Bishops refuse to separate from the Communion of the Church, tho' S. Chrysostom laid Claim to his See, and actually separated, and tho' they esteemed his Deprivation invalid. So did the Monks of Egypt. The Testimony of S. Nicon, out of a M S. S. Nicon himself, tho' he esteemed his Deprivation extremely unjust; yet approves of those that did not separate on his account. S. Chrysostom takes it for granted, as a thing of Course, that all would immediately resolve to choose a new Patriarch in his room. The Patriarch Atticus highly esteemed by the whole African Church. The Ecclesiastical Historian, Socrates, disapproves of S. Chrysostom's Deprivation; yet speaks of Arsacius and Atticus, as of true Patriarches. Theodoret extremely offended at the Injustice of his Deposers, yet reckons both Arsacius and Atticus among the Patriarches of Constantinople. They are both owned in all the Catalogues of the Patriarches. Their Ordinations never questioned by any. Atticus praised by P. Celestine I. and owned to be a true Successor of S. Chrysostom.  
I Have now concluded my History of the Church's Submission to Bishops put into the places of others deposed by the Secular Power. I have brought it down from the first Highpriest that ever was deposed by the Secular Power, i. e. from the Reign of King Solomon, to these very times, and have showed, That the Behaviour of the jews under their High-priests, and of the Ancient Christians under their Bishops, was agreeable to the present Practice of our Church. To make this History the more complete, I shall now show, That the same was the general Practice of the Ancients in respect to Bishops put into the places of others unjustly and uncanonically deposed by Synods, where the Secular Power concurred as executing the Sentence of the Bishops. I say, where the Secular Power concurred in executing the Sentence of the Bishops; for whatever the Vindicator, and others, are pleased to tell us concerning Synodical Deprivations, it is easy to show, That the Ancients never regarded the Decree or Sentence of an uncanonical Synod, if the Civil Governor did not force 'em to submit by taking upon him to excuse the sentence.  
It is not every Synod that has power by the Canons of the Church to depose a Bishop, and the Sentence of an uncanonical Synod, is by the Canons as invalid as if it were no Synod at all. In the Fifth Canon of the General Council of Nice, there is a plain Intimation that the Affairs of every Province, aught to be managed by the Bishops of the respective Provinces: and by the Second Can. of the General Council of Constantinople, 'tis expressly ordained, That no Metropolitan should go out of his own District to concern himself in the Affairs of another District (except in a General Council.) So when Theophilus Patriarch of Alexandria was accused to the Emperor Arcadius of certain great Crimes, and the Emperor commanded him to make his Appearance at Constantinople, to be tried there by S. Chrysostom Patriarch of Constantinople, he sent S. Chrysostom a Letter, in which he alleged, That he could not be judge of his Cause, that 
(a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. S. Chrys. Ep. ad P. Innocent. ap. Pallad. V. ejus p. 13.  the Affairs of every Province ought to be managed only by the Bishops of the respective Province. And S. Chrysostom tells P. Innocent, that when Theophilus came to Constantinople, and the Emperor commanded him to call him before him as his judge, he refused to do it, because he knew 
(b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. , that by the Canons he could not do it.  
'Twas contrary to this Law of the Church, that S. Chrysostom himself was deposed, and that too by Theophilus himself, who had pleaded that Law. The Circumstances of S. Chrysostom's Deprivation were these. Theophilus being at Constantinople, instead of being judged by S. Chrysostom, was encouraged by S. Chrysostom's Enemies, particularly by the Empress Eudoxia, to summon Him before him, and to Depose him. He packs a Synod consisting of 
(c) Pallad. p. 23.  Twenty nine Bishops of Egypt, whom he brought with him, and Seven others of other Countries, and, several malicious Accusations being preferred against him by his Enemies, citys him to appear, before he himself had cleared himself from the Crimes charged upon him, 
(d) S. Chrysost. ib. p 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  which was contrary to all Canons and Laws. S. Chrysostom sends him word, that he was ready to appear before a lawful and impartial Synod, but, as for him, he could not own him as his Judge, because he was his professed Enemy 
(a) Ib. p. 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. , had already drawn oft a part of his People from his Communion, and had no Authority to sit as a judge out of his own District, and besides was himself obnoxious. Notwithstanding all this, Theophilus, and the Bishops that were with him, pass upon him the Sentence of Deprivation. And pursuant to that Sentence, he is carried away from Constantinople; but there being a great Tumult among the People by whom he was exceedingly admired, he is presently recalled by the Emperor's Command, and the Suffrages of 
(b) Ibid. p. 16.  Thirty Bishops. He desires the Emperor to call a General Council, that his Cause might be heard. Theophilus flees away to Alexandria, together with most of his Bishops. But after a little time S. Chrysostom's Enemies prevail again. They gather a Synod at Constantinople and depose him, by a Canon of the Synod of Antioch, for presuming to act as a Bishop, after he had been deposed by a Synod. He's accordingly expelled a Second time, tho' there were present at that time at Constantinople, no less than 
(c) Pallad. p. 19 71, 82.  Forty Bishops, that declared against those Proceedings, among whom there were Seven Metropolitans. He was carried away into Banishment; in which he died Three years, and Three Months after his Expulsion.  
A little while after, Arfacius, Brother to Nectarius his Predecessor, was ordained his Successor: who died 
(d) Socr. l. 6. c. 20.  November 11. 405. after he had been Patriarch somewhat above a 
(e) Two Years, say Nicephorus Patriarch, Nicephorus Cal. Catal. MS. Theophanes, the Catalogues in the Ius Graeco-Rom. and the First Vol. of the Byzantine Hist. Palladius, whose Authority is greater than all, p. 94. allows him but fourteen Months, so the Baroccian Treatise. And hence it appears, That he was made Patriarch, not, as Socrates says, Within a few Days after S. Chrysostom's expulsion, but three Months after.  Year: For S. Chrysostom, was deposed 
(f) Socr. lib. 20. c. 18.  june 20.404. To him succeeded Atticus 
(g) In Febr. A. D. 406. Sozomen l. 8. c 27. says, He was made Patriarch in the Fourth Month after Arsacius' death. , S. Chrysostom being still living.  
Such were the Circumstances of that great Man's Deprivation. That the Emperor was not at all concerned in it, (any otherwise than as he executed the Sentence of the Bishops) he himself attests in his Epistle to P. Innocent. And that he himself looked upon it as absolutely invalid, is notorious. Let us now see what the Consequences were, what was his Behaviour, and what the Behaviour of the Church in relation to his Successors.  
1. It is to be observed, that tho' he was so injuriously, and provokingly dealt with, tho' he accounted all the Proceedings against him perfectly invalid, yet before he was carried away from Constantinople, he absolutely declared against all Separation on his Account. This appears, from what has been already observed in the Prefaces to the Baroccian Treatise. When he expected to be deposed 
(a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pallad. V. Chrys. p. 67. , Pray for me, my Brethren, (says he to the Bishops his Friends) and if you love Christ, let no one leave the Church on my Account,— And so you may obtain Mercy. When one of the Bishops complained of the loss the Church would have in his Deprivation 
(b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. : It suffices, Brother, (says he) speak no more; but, as I said, leave not your Churches. For as the Gift of Preaching did not begin with me, so neither will it end with me. Again he charges 'em 
(c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  to continue in Communion with those that deposed him, that they might not rend the Church. When he was just going out of his Church, to be led away into Exile, he thus addressed himself to the Deaconnesses, who were wont to attend there: 
(d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ib. p. 90.  Come hither (says he) my Daughters, and hear me. I am, I perceive, to be your Patriarch no longer. I have finished my Course; and perhaps my Face you will never see any more. This is that which I exhort you to do: Let no one of you be drawn off from the goodwill to the Church, which you have hitherto had: And whoever shall be ordained (Patriarch in my stead) without his own seeking it, by the Consent of all, to him submit your Heads, (to receive his Blessing) as to myself: for the Church cannot be without a Bishop: And by doing so, you may obtain Mercy. Remember me in your Prayers.  
We are told by 
(e) An Answer to a Treatise out of Eccles. Hist. p. 6. A farther account of the Baroccian MS. Unity of Priesthood. p. 63.  some of our Answerers, that S. Chrysostom looked upon himself as a dying Man, when he used these words in taking his leave of the Bishops, and of the Deaconesses, and therefore they cannot import, that he would have them submit to a Bishop, who should succeed him during his Life: But if they had duly considered the Words which he spoke to the Deaconesses, they would easily have seen, that what they say is not true. And perhaps my Face you will never see any more. What means the word, perhaps, if he verily expected a speedy Death? 'Tis as clear, I think, as the Sun from that single Word, that he did not then certainly expect to be put to Death. And it likewise appears from that Word, that the Advice he gives the Deaconesses, concerning their submitting to his Successor, was intended as well for his own Life-time, as otherwise. Since he plainly intimates, that he thought it doubtful, whether they should ever see him again, or not; if he had only intended, that they should submit to a Successor after his Death, he would have plainly told 'em so: As he takes care to tell 'em, that the Bishop they ought to submit to, should be one duly Elected; so he would likewise have told 'em, that it ought to be after his own Death.  
This Answer, it seems, was not thought so sufficient, but that some have thought fit to contrive another way to escape. Perhaps, says one 
(a) An Answer to a Treatise out of Eccles. Hist. p. 23.  of our Answerers, those Speeches were not truly S. Chrysostom's, but made in his Name by Palladius. To this I answer, 1. That if it were true, that those Speeches were made by the Author, not really spoken by S. Chrysostom, yet this at least must be confessed, that the Author intended, when he made those Speeches, to make such Speeches, as would be thought proper for so great a Man to speak, such as should beget in his Reader a great Esteem, and Veneration for S. Chrysostom. This at least must be granted, that in that Age in which the Author wrote, it was thought a thing very Commendable, not to assert one's Right, so as to occasion a Schism. But, 2. there is not any reason to suspect, that these Speeches were invented by the Author. He speaks so particularly of things; he tells ye the Name of the Bishop, and the Names of the Deaconesses, to whom he speaks; and the whole Relation carries with it so great an Air of Truth, that it cannot with any show of Reason be called in Question. Sure I am, those Speeches were always understood by the Ancients to be truly S. Chrysostom's own. Nicephorus Callisti tells us, 
(b) Hist. Eccl. l. 13. c. 20.  that S. Chrysostom commanded the Bishops not to separate from the Communion of his Enemies, and the Deaconesses to submit to his Successor: and he highly praises him for it. And George Patriarch of Alexandria, in his Life of Chrysostom, out of which 
(c) Cod. 96. p. 264. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Photius has given us some Excerpa, mentions the same thing, that he begged the Bishops not to make a Schism in the Church on his Account.  
This was S. Chrysostom's Judgement, whilst his Piety was too warm for his Resentment: but the best of Men are not always consistent with themselves. After he was carried away from Constantinople; his Passions so far prevail, as to make him Act contrary to his own Advice. He separates from the Church, and sends about Letters to encourage others to do so. What the reason of this was, is no hard matter to guests. It appears, by the 
(d) Ap. Photium Cod. 59 p. 58. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Acts of the Synod ad Quercum, by which he was deposed, that Arsacius and Atticus had both been Witnesses against him. Palladius assures us, 
(e) P. 95. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  that Atticus was the Contriver of all that was done against him: and 
(f) Hist. l. 1. c. 27. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Sozomen tells us, that he was one of those that conspired against him. And this in all Likelihood was the Cause, why he would not yield to 'em. He hated 'em, as his Enemies, and his Passions were too strong for his Piety. He had owned before that his Successors ought to be received; but when he saw that such were made his Successors, as had had a hand in his Deprivation, and had been Witnesses against him, when he saw that even Atticus himself, his very great Enemy, was made his Successor; his Passions grew too strong for his judgement. If the Epistle to Cyriacus were written by S. Chrysostom, in whose Name it was published, his Passions must needs be confessed by all, to be very exorbitant 
(a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. etc. Ep. 115. . I hear that that Dotard Arsacius, whom the Empress has placed in my Chair, persecutes those that will not Communicate with him, and that many of them have died in Prison. That Dotard! But I am not willing to believe, so ill a thing of S. Chrysostom, as that he would suffer his Passion to break out after that manner: and tho' Photius 
(b) Cod. 277. p. 1565. , a great Critic, quotes that Epistle as one of S. Chrysostom's; yet I doubt not, but they are in the Right, who reject it as Spurious, and of a Style quite different from S. Chrysostom's. 'Tis observed by one of our 
(c) An Answer to a Treatise out of Eccles. Hist. p. 9  Answerers, that there are so many Accidents, which may make any Author's Style different, at different times, especially in his familiar Letters, and those written in Banishment, and perhaps under the Disorders of Sickness and Dangers, which S. Chrysostom so often complains of, that this censure from the Style must be the less certain, especially since Photius did not discern it. We grant that S. Chrysostom did not give up his Right to Arsacius: there is no need therefore, that our Author should defend that Epistle. But if he will needs have it, let him have it: It will make more against his Cause than for it. Only this I shall say, that it is from the Style of those very Epistles, which S. Chrysostom wrote in his Banishment, in the very same Circumstances, and about the same Concerns, that I am fully convinced, that that to Cyriacus is not Genuine. Black and White, are hardly more different. And among all S. Chrysostom's Epistles, there is not one that resembles it. If Photius did not discern it, 'twas because he did not consider it.  
2. It is to be observed, that they that adhered to S. Chrysostom, and refused to Communicate, with his Successors, Arsacius and Atticus, were rather carried away by their Passions, than governed by Conscience and Principles. This appears from hence, that tho' Atticus was constituted against S. Chrysostom's Will, and tho' they themselves had separated from him, and continued in their Separation long after S. Chrysostom's Death, yet when Atticus had restored S. Chrysostom's Name to the Diptyches of the Church, than almost all were well satisfied, and Communicated with Atticus as a true Bishop. How can this be Reconcilable to Principles? How could the inserting S. Chrysostom's Name in the Diptyches, make Atticus sit to be owned as a Bishop, if he was not qualified to be owned before? It is plain, they were governed by their Love, to S. Chrysostom, not by Principles. Others there were, of the joannites, that refused to Communicate with Atticus, even after S. Chrysostom's Name was inserted in the Diptyches, they refused to Communicate even with his Successor Sisinnius; they refused likewise to communicate with Sisinnius' Successor, Proclus: But observe what follows: when the Patriarch Proclus, had ordered S. Chrysostom's Body to be brought to Constantinople, and there to be honourably interred, which was 
(k) Theop. Chron. p. 30.  three and thirty Years after his Deprivation, than the Breach was all made up, they were all contented, and submitted freely to Proclus. What was this, but to be governed by Passion? What Alteration could be made in the Nature of the thing, by bringing S. Chrysostom's Body to Constantinople? 'Tis moreover observable, that the joannites of Constantinople fell off from the Communion of the Church, before there was any one ordained in his place, and before S. Chrysostom was carried away from Constantinople. This appears from the Testimony of Socrates 
(a) L 6. c. 18. . The Emperor (says he) sent Chrysostom word, that himself could not go to Church, if he, who had been deposed by two Synods, were there. On that Account Chrysostom went no more to the Church. Then all that were of his Party, forsook the Church, and celebrated the Feast of Easter in the public Baths of Constantius. With them there were many Bishops and Presbyters, and other Ecclesiastical Persons, who because they kept separate Meetings, were called JOANNITES. To all this I add, that 
(b) L. 8. c. 23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Sozomen tells us, that the reason why the joannites refused to Communicate with Arsacius after Chrysostom was carried away, and He made Patriarch, was (not because they thought it unlawful to Communicate with him, but) because in his Congregations there were some of Chrysostom's Deposers.  
Among those that received Atticus into Communion upon his inserting S. Chrysostom's Name in the Diptyches, was 
(c) Vide ejus Epist. 14, 15, 16, 17, 19  P. Innocent of Rome, together with the rest of those Western Bishops, who had been kept by his Authority, from Communicating with Atticus. P. Innocent in his 
(d) Ap. Sozom. l. 8. c. 26. & Niceph. Hist. l. 13. c. 32. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Epistle to the Clergy and People of Constantinople had said, that a Bishop unjustly constituted cannot be a Bishop; but words are oftentimes rashly spoken; 'tis Practice that best expresses the true and genuine Sentiments of the Heart. And the Pope's Practice was contrary to that Saying. If Atticus was no Bishop, because unjustly constituted, how could he be a Bishop afterwards, without a New Ordination? yet afterwards he is owned 
(e) 'Tis said in the Baroccian Treatise, That Severianus Bishop of Gabala, and Acacius of B●rrhaea, who were chiefly concerned in St. Chrysostom's Deprivation, were not deposed or punished 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which I render thus; Quum post aliquanto coram Papâ Innocentio sisterentur. The Vindicator, p. 39 says, This is not rightly translated, that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies only accued in this place; For (says he) no History owns, that Severianus and Acacius appeared personally before Pope Innocent: But that is his mistake; For tho' in truth they never did personally appear, yet 'tis certain, that by the latter Greeks 'twas believed that they did. This the Vindicator would not have been ignorant of if he had read the spurious Epistle written in the Emperor Arcadius' Name to Pope Innocent. The Emperor there tells the Pope, That he had sent Acacius and Severianus to him to answer for what they had done: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.  by the Pope, and that too without being confirmed by any Council, by Virtue of the Orders conferred upon him, while Chrysostom was living. I must here observe, that the chief Reasons why the Pope declared so zealously for S. Chrysostom, seems to be this: because Theophilus of Alexandria his taking upon him, to depose a Patriarch of Constantinople, was a great Presumption, and a Derogation from the Grandeur of the See of Rome. The Pope therefore was obliged to oppose him. And hence it came to pass, that he only desired, that S. Chrysostom's Name should be restored to the Diptyches: For by that the Patriarch Atticus owned, that S. Chrysostom was not justly, or validly deprived. That was all the Pope aimed at. It is also observable, that P. Innocent, when he proposed that S. Chrysostom's Name should be restored to the Diptyches of the Church of Constantinople, and of the other Churches of the East, does not at all insist on this, that Arsacius' Name, who was made Patriarch while Chrysostom was living and died before him, should be struck out. No, tho' such were his Circumstances, yet the Pope was well contented that his Name should be recited in the Churches, as one of the true Patriarches of Constantinople.  
3. It is to be observed, that a very great part of the Catholic Church received and communicated with Arsacius and Atticus, tho' at the same time they owned, that S. Chrysostom was unjustly deposed, and that too whilst S. Chrysostom was still living.  
1. Maximianus a Bishop of Macedonia, one of S. Chrysostom's great Friends, and one to whom he wrote some Epistles, whilst he was in Banishment, sent 
(a) Ep. 16. Innocentii P. I.  to P. Innocent, to desire him to receive the Patriarch Atticus into Communion. 'Tis true, this was after S. Chrysostom's Death: yet it shows that he was not of Opinion, that Atticus' Ordination was Null, because ordained while Chrysostom was living.  
2. That the Patriarch Atticus was owned and received by all the African Church, appears from the Code of the Canons, of that Church. Let us send (says Alypius, 
(b) P. 331. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.  one of the Bishops of the Council of Africa) to our most holy Brother the Bishop of Constantinople, for a Copy of the Nicene Canons. Accordingly they did so, and the Patriarch Atticus' Answer to them is 
(c) P. 405.  still extant. The same Church in her Epistle to P. Celestine, calls Atticus, 
(d) Ib. p. 409. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  the venerable Bishop of Constantinople, and 
(e) Breviario, c. 4.  Liberatus, a Deacon of that Church, where he mentions him, gives him the Title of Beatus Atticus. So by 
(f) Common. super nomine Caelestii, Pelagi, & juliani. Concil. tom. 2. p. 1512.  Marius Mercator, who also seems to have been of Africa, he is styled sanctae memoriae Atticus, Episcopus; again, sanctus ille Vir. I Grant that these Testimonies of the Church of Africa, were after S. Chrysostom's Death: but withal it must be observed, that as they show, that the Church allowed of his Ordination, so it does not by any means appear, that that Church was ever concerned for S. Chrysostom, or ever declined Atticus' Communion, whilst S. Chrysostom was living, tho' it cannot be doubted, but that they accounted S. Chrysostom unjustly deposed. That the African Church did not side with P. Innocent, against the Patriarch Atticus, and those that Communicated with him, appears moreover from a 
(a) Cod. Can. Eccles. Afric. c. 101. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Decree of one of the Synods of that Church; by which the Church orders, that a Letter should be sent to P. Innocent, to reconcile the two Churches of Rome and Alexandria, that there might be Peace between 'em as the Lord had commanded. This Decree was made in the Year 407.  
3. 'Tis expressly attested by 
(b) Hist. Eccl. l. 5. c. 34. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Theodoret, that the greatest part of the Eastern Bishops, esteemed S. Chrysostom' s Deprivation unjust, yet did not break the Peace of the Church on his Account. And this express Testimony I desire the Vindicator would be pleased to take notice of; who tells us 
(c) P. 12.  that he believes we can give no Instances of any, who thought S. Chrysostom unjustly deprived, but who were Joannites, and therefore separated from the Communion of his Deprivers. One would wonder how so learned a Man should be ignorant of a thing so obvious.  
4. 'Tis asserted by S. Nicon, who flourished above Seven hundred years ago, in a Treatise concerning Schismatics and Schism 
(d) MS. Baroc. 91. fol. 27. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. , not yet published, (taken, I suppose, cut of his Pandects,) that the Monks of Egypt, a vast Body of Men, and exceedingly pious, accounted S. Chrysostom's Deprivation unjust, yet never separated from the Communion of their Patriarch Theophilus (and consequently not from the Communion of Arsacius and Atticus Patriarches of Constantinople.) In the same words S. Nicon plainly discovers what his opinion was: He speaks of S. Chrysostom's Deprivation, as extremely unjust, yet highly approves of the Behaviour of the Monks of Egypt, in not separating themselves from Theophilus' Communion. Yet so holy a Man was he esteemed, that he is worshipped by the Church, both the Greek and the Latin, as a Saint.  
5. When S. Chrysostom took his leave of the Deaconesses, and charged 'em to submit to his Successor, provided he were Elected by the Consent of all, he plainly intimates, that he did not think any would refuse to choose a new Bishop in his place, because he was unjustly deposed. It is plain from those words, that he took it for granted, that all would presently resolve to Elect another in his Room; as a thing to be done of Course.  
6. Socrates the Ecces. Historian, tho' he 
(a) Vide l. 6. c. 10. 15, 16, 18.  takes part with S. Chrysostom as to the Equity of his Cause, and condemns his Deposers, as Acting unjustly and uncanonically, yet at the same time, approves very well of their new Patriarches Arsacius and Atticus. He says, That Arsacius was a person of 
(b) C. 19 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  extraordinary mildness, and governed peaceably. Atticus he calls 
(c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. c. 20.  a pious and a prudent man: and tells us, that by 
(d) L. 7. c. 2.  those Qualifications he much increased the Church, the Heretics being brought over to it by his Management. He spends (in a word) whole 
(e) Ib. etc. 25.  Chapters in his praise.  
7. The Historian Theodoret, who was himself a Bishop, and lived at that time, tho' he extremely 
(f) Vide l. 5. c. 34.  disapproved of S. Chrysostom's Deprivation as unjust, and illegal, yet he reckons not only Atticus, who survived S. Chrysostom, but likewise Arsacius, amongst the Patriarches of Constantinople, viz. in the Catalogue of Patriarches subjoined to his History. 
(g) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Bishops of Constantinople— joannes Chrysostomus, Arsacius, Atticus, Sisinnius. They are reckoned likewise, as Patriarches of Constantinople, in all the Catalogues of the Patriarches of that See, in that of the Patriarch Nicephorus, in that of Nicephorus Callisti not yet published, in that which is extant in the Ius Graeco-Romanum, and in both those that are published in the beginning of the First Volume of the Byzantine Historians. Yet 'tis certain, that when these Catalogues were written, 'twas a thing received as the Gospel itself, That S. Chrysostom was unjustly, and unlawfully deposed. He is reckoned also as one of the true Patriarches of Constantinople, by Theophanes in his Chronography.  
8. 'Tis well observed by the Author of the Baroccian Treatise, that tho' it cannot be supposed, but that the Patriarch Arsacius ordained several Persons, Bishops and Presbyters, yet it does not at all appear, that any ever scrupled to receive any Persons on that account, because by him ordained.  
I shall conclude this Chapter with the words of P. Celestine I. concerning the Patriarch Atticus. Atticus (says he in his 
(h) Ap. Conc. Ephes. parte 1. cap 18. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Epistle to the Patriarch Nestorius) of holy Memory, that Doctor of the Catholic Faith, who was truly a Successor of the blessed john (Chrysostom) as well in his Faith as in his See, etc.   

CHAP. XVII.  
Deprivations by Heretical Synods invalid. S. Eustathius, Patriarch of Antioch, deposed by an Heretical Synod; he himself accounts his Deprivation invalid. The Orthodox separate from the Communion of his Successors, not because he was invalidly deprived, but because they accounted them Heretics. Eustathius acts as Bishop of Antioch, tho' in banishment, as long as his Successors were Heretics; but as soon as Meletius, an Orthodox Person, was ordained his Successor, he desisted, and concerned himself no more as Bishop of Antioch. That he lived till Meletius was made Patriarch, demonstrated against Baronius, Valesius, etc. ● by some of the Orthodox refused to submit to Meletius. The Vindicator's Assertion, That none accounted Meletius an Arian whilst he was Bishop, confuted. The Schism between the Meletians and the Paulinists no Example against us. §. 1, 2. The Instance of Maximus and Cyril of Jerusalem examined. §. 3. Euphemius, Patriarch of Constantinople, deposed by an Heretical Synod; yet Macedonius, an Orthodox and a good Man, accepts of his See, tho' he owned him to be the rightful Patriarch. Macedonius is received by the Catholics, tho' they loved Euphemius and accounted him unjustly deprived. He is owned by S. Elias Bishop of Jerusalem, tho' Elias at the same time declared Euphemius' Deprivation unjust, and refused to subscribe to it. §. 4. The Schisms of the Novatians, Donatists, and Meletians of Egypt, no Examples against us. §. 5. Two Fragments of Photius out of a MS. §. 1, 3.  
THat the Deprivation of a Bishop by an Heretical Synod is absolutely null and invalid, is a certain Maxim in the Law of the Church. Yet this the Vindicator does not seem to take notice of. If he can show that a Bishop was deprived by Bishops, he presently thinks himself secure, without considering whether the Deprivers were Heretical or not. S. Athanasius in his Epistle ad Solitarios, where he tells us that the Emperor Constantius sent to Liberius, Bishop of Rome, to persuade him to subscribe to his (Athanasius') Condemnation, whom a Synod of Arians had deposed, makes Liberius speak to the Messenger after this manner. Let there be (says he) an Ecclesiastical Synod called, and let the Heretics 
(a) P. 833. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  be thrown out, and let the Orthodox have freedom of Speech. For they cannot be Members of a Synod who are not Orthodox in Faith: neither ought any judicial Enquiry to be made concerning Actions, till there has been an Enquiry concerning Faith. For, first, all difference in Faith ought to be removed, and then we may make an Enquiry into Actions.— These things have we learned from our Fathers. These things declare to the Emperor. Thus when Macedonius the Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople was deprived first by the Emperor Anastasius, and afterwards by a kind of Synod, which consisted of Eutychian Heretics, and some Bishops were sent to him with his Deprivation, he asked 'em, 
(a) Theoph. p. 134. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Whether they received the Council of Chalcedon? For (says he) if Sabbatians or Macedonians should bring me a Deprivation, ought I to receive it? So he refused to receive it. So far was the Church from allowing a Heretic to be a judge of a Bishop, that she would not allow one to be a Witness against a Bishop. 'Tis expressly forbidden by the 6th. Canon of the 2 d. General Council.  
In the time of the Emperor Constantine, Eustathius, Patriarch of Antioch was deposed by an Heretical Synod upon an Accusation of Incontinence. The Vindicator tells us that his Deposers, tho' they secretly favoured the Arians, were not as yet declared an opposite Communion. That is nothing to the purpose: For 'tis certain, that for a great while together, that Party were in a sort of Communion with the Catholics, and yet were accounted Heretics. That Eustathius was deposed by Heretics (such at least as refused to subscribe to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Doctrine of the Nicene Council) is attested by S. 
* Encom. Eustath.  Chrysostom, 
(b) Apolog. ad Imp. p. 702. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.  Athanasius, 
(c) Chron. Eustathius, quo in exilium ob fidem truso.  S. jerom, 
(d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, l. 2. c. 19  Sozomen, the Patriarch 
(e) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Chronol.  Nicephorus, and 
(f) Menaeum Graecorum. Libellus Synodicus, etc.  others, who tell us not only that he was deposed by Arians, but likewise that he was deposed on the account of his Faith, because he was a great Enemy of the Arians, and a great Defender of the Orthodox Faith. Hence it is that he is wont to be honoured with the Title of 
(g) Niceph Patr. loc. cit. Anastasius Sinaita Contempl. Anagog. in Hexaem. l. 9  Martyr and 
(h) Martyrolog. Rom. 17. Kal. Aug. & alia Martyrologia.  Confessor. Theodoret 
(i) L. 1. c 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.  tells us that the Orthodox Bishops, who were present in that Synod, were against his Deprivation, and persuaded him not to submit to the Sentence passed upon him. Neither did he submit; for those that had condemned him were forced to apply 
(a) Ibid.  themselves to the Emperor, to desire him to execute their Sentence, and to banish him from Antioch. Which was accordingly done.  
Tho' Eustathius was so unjustly and invalidly deposed, yet,  
1. I observe that the Orthodox Party of Antioch did not separate from his Successors, because he had been invalidly deprived, but because they accounted them Arians. That this was the Cause of their Separation, is expressly asserted by Theodoret. Having said that Eulalius, Euphronius, and Flaccillus were made Bishops of Antioch successively in Eustathius' room, he 
(b) L. 1 c. 22. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  adds: All these were inwardly Arians, and on that account, the greatest part of the Orthodox, both Clergy and Laity, left the Churches, and met together in Conventicles: and were called Eustathians, because they began after he was carried away. Socrates tells us, that after Eustathius was deposed, there was a great Sedition in Antioch, one part of the City being for 
(c) Socr. l. 1. c. 24. he omits Eulalius. Theodoret shows that they did not endeavour to choose Eusebius, till after Eulalius' Death. Socrates is likewise in an error when he says there was a 8 Years vacancy between Eustathius and Euphronius.  Eusebius Bishop of Caesarea, and others, desiring that Eustathius should be restored: He adds, That Eusebius refusing to accept of the Bishopric of Antioch, the Seditions ceased. No wonder if the People were for the restauration of their old Bishop, since there was not any other then in his See. No wonder if they were so much against Eusebius' being made Bishop, since he (as is very notorious) was accounted an Arian.  
2dly. I observe, that Eustathius being in Banishment, continued to take care of the Orthodox of Antioch as their Bishop (as much as he could at so great a distance) as long as those that were put into his place were Arians: But as soon as Meletius, an Orthodox Person, was made Bishop in his room, he peaceably gave over, and never concerned himself any more as a Bishop of Antioch. 'Tis observed by Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople, in a 
(d) MS. Baroc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Treatise not yet published, that Meletius, tho' he had received his Orders from Arians, and tho' Eustathius was still living, was however owned by the Church as a true Patriarch of Antioch. The holy Meletius (says he) was ordained Bishop of Sebastia by the Arians, and by the Arians likewise was translated from thence to Berrhoea, and afterwards to Antioch, S. Eustathius being thrust out of that See for his Orthodoxy. But nothing of all this proved a prejudice to him; not his being translated from one See to another not his being advanced to Eustathius ' s Throne when he was banished for his Piety and still living, nor his being ordained by Arians. But because he adhered to the Orthodox Faith, he was readily received by the Church, and is honoured among the chief of the holy Fathers. He it was that ordained Chrysostom, Deacon; and the great Basil, Presbyter: as we learn from Socrates ' s Ecclesiastical History, and from S. Amphilochius ' s Oration concerning S. Basil. That S. Basil and S. Chrysostom were ordained by Meletius, and that the old Patriarch Eustathius was living when Meletius was made Patriarch of Antioch, is likewise observed by the Author of the Baroccian Treatise. But that Eustathius was living when Meletius was made Patriarch of Antioch, is positively denied by some of our 
(a) A further Account of the Baroccian M S. p 6, 7.  Answerers. I had observed in my Notes on that Treatise, that 
(b) L. 4. c. 14, 15.  Socrates and 
(c) L. 6. c. 13.  Sozomen expressly attest that Eustathius was alive in the third Consulship of Valentinianus and Valens, i. e. A. D. 370. which was long after Meletius was made Patriarch, that he had been recalled from Banishment by the Emp. jovian, that he was on that Year at Constantinople, where he Ordained Evagrius the Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople, in opposition to Demophilus the Arian, and was again banished by the Emperor Valens to Bizua in Thrace; I observed that the Arguments produced by Baronius and Valesius, to show that Eustathius died before Valesius was made Patriarch, and that Socrates and Sozomen mistook Eustathius of Antioch for Eustathius of Sebastia, are not of so great weight as to be laid in the Balance against so express and particular an account as those Authors give us. To this, says one of our Answerers: I must confess that Eustathius (as the Editor observes against Valesius) might have lived to the third Consulship of Valentinianus and Valens, for than he had not been above 90 Years of Age. 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 Orthodox 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 S. jerom that Eustathius of Antioch was buried at Trajanople in Thrace, to which place he was banished (by Constantine) and therefore could not be that Eustathius who was banished by Valens to Bizna in Thrace. But these are Arguments not very favourable to the Editor's Designs, and therefore must be shuffled over and concealed: So that we have a full Testimony of Theodoret, who wrote his History to supply the Defects and correct the Mistakes of Socrates and Sozomen, and says that Eustathius was dead before Meletius was made Patriarch; and likewise the Authority of S. jerom against a senseless surmise of one single Socrates, (for Sozomen transcribes him) who was neither so accurate nor judicious as either of the other two, etc. Thus much our Author. But notwithstanding his Sufficiency and Confidence, I still assert, that Eustathius was living when Meletius was made Patriarch of Antioch. First, As for the Testimony of S. jerom, it might very well be so as he says, and yet so as Socrates says too. For Eustathius, though banished by Valens to Bizua, might be buried at 
(a) His Body, as it seems was afterwards removed to Philippi. For Victor T●n. and Theodorus Lector say, it was carried to Antioch from Philippi. Theodorus thought that he was banished to Philippi.  Trajanople. And since that Eustathius, whom Socrates mentions, was banished into Thrace, where S. jerom and S. Chrysostom say Eustathius of Antioch lay buried, even from thence it appears probable that it was the same Eustathius. 2. The Authority of Theodoret is much less than that of Socrates. That Eustathius was dead when Meletius was made Patriarch, might be said only by Conjecture: But to tell such a particular Story as Socrates does concerning his being alive after that, argues a particular Knowledge. And as for Theodoret his being so much a better Historian than Socrates, our Author might have learned from Valesius himself, that 
(b) Praef. ad Theodorit. Illud praeterea in Historiâ Theodoriti neprehendendum mihi videntur, quod in toto opere nullam notam temporum adhibuit.— Quanto magis. Laudanda est Socratis diligentia, etc.  Socrates was particularly diligent in his Chronology. 3. It is not only Socrates, and those that follow him, that are Witnesses of what we assert. I shall not urge the Authority of Photius, nor that of the 
* Ad. Phot. Bibl.  Life of S. Athanasius, of 
(c) Chron. ub● de Evagrio Ep. Constantipolitano.  Nicephorus the Patriarch, of 
(d) Catal. MS. Patr. Constantinopolitan. & in Histor.  Nicephorus Callisti, who, as well as Sozomen, seem to have borrowed from Socrates: But others there are who did not follow him. 1. 'Tis expressly asserted in the Menology of the Greek Church, that our Eustathius was a hundred Years old when he died. 2. 'Tis likewise expressly asserted by 
(e) L. 2. p. 557.  Theodorus Lector, who is followed by Theophanes, that he died a hundred Years before his Body was translated from Philippi to Antioch by the Patriarch Calendion, which was in the Year 
(f) Not 490, as Victor Tun. and Valesius say: for Calendion was not Patriarch so long.  482, or 483; Therefore according to Theodorus he died about the Year 382. To which time he might very well live, since he was a hundred Years old when he died. But to what purpose do I cite these Autorities, when S. Chrysostom himself is my Witness? Let us hear what he says of Eustathius in his Encomium. He there plainly tells us, not only that he was living, when Meletius was ordained his Successor, (which I wonder that neither Baronius, nor Valesius observed) but likewise that he left off to concern himself, as a Bishop of Antioch, as soon as the Orthodox Meletius was ordained in his place. 
(a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.  God (says S. Chrysostom) permitted the Blessed Eustathius to be lead away into Banishment, that he might make the strength of Truth, and the weakness of Heretics more manifest. When he was to be carried away, tho' he was to leave the City, yet he would not cease to love you: and he did not therefore look upon himself to be deprived of his Episcopal Office, because he was thrust out of his Church. But so much the more he applied himself to take care of you, and calling you all together he exhorted you, not to yield to the Wolf's, or betray the Flock to 'em.— 
(b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  When they invaded the Sheep, he did not leave 'em, tho' he was not possessed of the Episcopal Chair. But that his generous and Philosophical Soul did not value: the Honours of a Governor he left to others, but he bore the burden of a Governor, being conversant among Wolf's.— 
(c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  In doing thus he form all to the true Faith. Neither did he desist, till by the Providence of God the blessed Meletius came hither, and received the whole Mass: the one sowed, and the other reaped.  
3. I observe, that tho' as S. Chrysostom witnesses, Eustathius continued to Act as Bishop of Antioch, yet as soon as Meletius, an Orthodox Person, was proposed to be Elected Bishop of that See, the Orthodox Party very readily concurred and accepted of him, tho' it does not appear, that they knew that Eustathius would give his Consent. How cheerfully the Orthodox accepted of Meletius we may read in 
(d) L. 2. c. 31.  Theodoret. There were some of the Eustathius that stood out against him, and refused to own him: But their reason was, because he had been ordained by Arians which that party accounted a just Cause of Separation, and besides was by many accounted an Arian himself. We are told by the 
(e) P. 50, 51.  Vindicator, that the only Reason why his Adversaries excepted against him was, his being ordained by Arians: But that is a very great Mistake. That by some he was accounted an Arian, even whilst he was Bishop of Antioch, 
(f) Ep. 321, 349.  S. Basil complains. 
(g) Chron. an. 329. Eustathio in exilium ob fidem truso, usque in presentem diem, Arriani Ecclesiam occupaverunt, i. e. Eulalius, Eusebius, Euphronius, Placillus, Stephanus, Leontius, Eudoxius, Meletius, Euzoius, Dorotheus; rursum Meletius. Quorum idcirco tempora non digessi, quod eos hostes potius quam Episcopos Christi judicavi. Vide ad an. 361.  S. jerom himself expressly calls him a Heretic or Arian, and so does the Author of the 
(h) P. 688. Ed. in. 40.  Chronicon Paschale.  
§. 2. After some time Meletius was by the Emperor Constantius banished and recalled, together with the other Orthodox Bishops that had been banished, by the Emperor julian. Before he returned to Antioch, Lucifer Calaritanus, a great Zealot, one that did not allow of any one whom the Arians had ordained, had been there; and had ordained a Presbyter of the Eustathians, by Name Paulinus, Bishop of Antioch. This the greatest part of the Orthodox did not allow of, but refused to receive him as their Bishop, and when their Bishop Meletius returned, adhered to him. We are told by 
(a) An Answer to a Treatise out of Eccles. Hist. p. 4, 5.  some of our Adversaries, that this Example makes directly against us. For (say they) Paulinus was possessed of the See of Antioch, and was likewise Orthodox, yet Meletius' Party did not receive him, but waited for his Return, and adhered to him. But 'tis strange, that this should be urged against that Doctrine which we maintain. I shall not mention that Paulinus was esteemed by some not Orthodox, but a 
(b) Epiphan. Haer. 77. c. 20.  Sabellian; neither shall I mention, that his not allowing the Ordinations of the Meletian Clergy, as being derived from the Arians, was enough to make that Party oppose him. I only observe, that the Circumstances of his Promotion, were extremely different from those supposed in our Question. 1. Lucifer Calaritanus had nothing at all to do with the See of Antioch. What Authority had he to constitute a Bishop of Antioch? Had Meletius been dead, the Church of Antioch would not have been obliged to submit to Paulinus whom he made Bishop. If an Outlandish Bishop, that had nothing at all to do here, should pretend to constitute an Archbishop of Canterbury, in the room of a banished Archbishop, who can imagine that, by the Principles which we advance, we should be obliged to receive him? 2. Meletius was not at that time in Banishment, not made uncapable of serving as a Bishop of Antioch. He was so far from being made uncapable by any Sovereign Power, that by the Emperor's Authority he had 
(c) Socr. l. 3. c. 6, 7, 9 Theodoret, l. 3. c. 4, 5.  leave given him to return to his See, and was as it were upon the Road.  
§. 3. It's alleged by the Author of the Baroccian Treatise, That Maximus an Orthodox Bishop of jerusalem, was deposed by Acacius the Heretical Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine, because he took part with S. Athanasius, and established the Doctrine of the Homoousion: That, he being so deposed, Cyrillus an Arian was constituted Bishop in his room, but was afterwards owned by the Church, because he came over to the Orthodox Faith, and is honoured by the Church as a Saint. To this our Adversaries answer, that 
(d) L. 2. c. 26.  Theodoret, and 
(e) Chron. an. 349.  S. jerom attest, that Maximus was (not deposed but) dead before Cyril was made Bishop of jerusalem. To which they might have added, the Authority of the 
(f) Epist. Synod. ad Damas. P. ap. Theod. l. 5, 9 p. 211.  General Council of Constantinople, in which it is declared that Cyril was made Bishop Canonically ordained by the Bishops of the Province. On the other side it may be alleged, that the Historian Socrates 
(a) L. 2. c. 38.  expressly affirms, that Maximus was expelled, and Cyril substituted in his room by the Arians, Acacius and Patrophilus; and that in this Socrates is followed by many; by the Author of the 
(b) C. 49.  Synodicon, and by the Authors of the two Lives of S. Athanasius. It is likewise attested by Theophanes, that Maximus was deposed. To which I shall add the Testimony of Photius, out of a MS. Treatise, which is directly to our purpose. S. Maximus (says 
(c) MS. Baroc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  he) the Confessor, being expelled by the Arians for his Orthodoxy, Cyril was by the Arians ordained in Jerusalem, one of the Chief of the Arian Faction, as Ecclesiastical Historians tell us. But he coming over to the Orthodox Faith, was not only received as a Bishop, together with those whom he had ordained, but is also honoured by the Church as a Saint. Concerning whom Gregory Nyssen in his Homily, upon the Translation of the Body of S. Stephen the Proto-Martyr, has these words: Cyril repented and adhered to the Orthodox Faith. He presided in the Second Council, and was not excepted against, either because he was ordained by Arians, and had been an Arian himself, or because he had usurped the Chair of S. Maximus, expelled in defence of the Homoousion, and still living. This Instance I leave to the Reader's Judgement.  
§. 4. Euphemius Patriarch of Constantinople, was deposed by an Heretical Synod, in obedience to the Heretical Emperor Anastasius. The Emperor Anastasius (says Theodorus 
(d) P. 559.  Lector) charged the Patriarch Euphemius with the Rebellion of the Isauris, alleging that he had written Letters to the Rebels, and called together 
(e) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  those Bishops which were in Town; who to gratify the Emperor, passed upon Euphemius the Sentence of Excommunication, and Deprivation. 'Tis to be observed of this Synod, that it was unlawful on two Accounts. 1. It was only a Synodus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. a few Bishops called together, such as were then residing at Constantinople, which by the Canons of the Church could be of no force at all, for they require that a 
(f) That the Affairs of a Province should be managed by the Bishops (in General of that Province.  Synod should be at least Provincial. The Vindicator says such a Synod was by the Canons of the Church sufficient and obliging, till a greater number of Bishops, could be persuaded to restore him. By what Canons? If the Law requires, that all the Members of Parliament should be summoned, and only some few are called, tho' every one is truly a Member, yet they cannot make a Parliament, 2. It was an Heretical Synod. Such a one to be sure it was. For the true reason why the Emperor would have Euphemius deposed 
(a) Evagr. l. 3. c. 30 Victor, Tun. p. 5. Macellinus Comet, Cyrillus Seythop. V. Sab.e.  was because he knew him to be a stout Defender of the Faith. If they had not been Men of his own Faith, the Emperor would never have employed 'em in that Business: and Theophanes 
(b) P. 128.  expressly tells us, that the Bishops that were about the Emperor were Heretics. That this Synod in particular, was an Heretical 
(c) C. 107. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Synod, the Libellus Synodicus asserts. I now observe: 1. That Macedonius who was put into Euphemius' place, and was really Orthodox, tho' the Emperor (I suppose) thought him well inclined to his Party, tho' he accounted Euphemius invalidly deprived, and had with all a great Honour for him, yet he freely accepted of the See and that too, tho' he knew that Euphemius had never resigned. That he thought him invalidly deprived, may be gathered from these words of Theodorus Lector. The Emperor (says he) Commanded Euphemius to be banished to Euchaita, who desired that Macedonius might give him his Word, that he should not be injured on the way. Macedonius therefore being permitted by the Emperor to pass his Word for his Security, did a thing that deserves Praise: He commanded his Deacon 
(d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  to take off his Episcopal Robe, and, so he went into the Baptisterium of the Church to Euphemius. He took up Money likewise upon use, and gave it him to sustain his Company. If he had not thought him invalidly deposed, he would not have showed him that kind of respect.  
2. That Macedonius being thus constituted was received as Patriarch of Constantinople by the Catholic Church. This is too notorious to need any Proof. I shall only observe, that he is called by Zonaras a Holy Man; and that the People of Constantinople submitted to him, tho' they loved Euphemius so well, and so much condemned the Proceedings against him, as to 
(e) Theodorus Lector, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.  raise a Sedition for his sake when first deprived.  
3. That when Macedonius sent his Synodical Letters to Elias Patriarch of jerusalem, Elias received him as Patriarch, tho' at the same time he refused to subscribe to Euphemius' Deprivation. 
(f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. V. Sabae. c. 50.  Elias (says Cyrillus Scythopolitanus) refused to give his Consent to Euphemius ' s Deprivation, but Macedonius he received into Communion, when he found by his Synodical Letter that he was Orthodox. So between Macedonius and Elias there was Concord.  
4. So far was Euphemius from cherishing any Animosity against his Successor Macedonius, that after Macedonius, was likewise banished, they 
(a) Libel. Synod. c. 110.  visited one another as Friends, and were therefore both murdered by the Emperor's Command.  
§. 5. It's alleged by one 
(b) The Unity of Priesthood, etc. p. 58, 59  of our Adversaries, that the Novatians, the Donatists, and the Meletians of Egypt were Schismatics in the Opinion of the Church, because the Bishops who first headed 'em were Second Bishops; but this is easily answered: For the Bishops, whom they followed, were not set up by any Sovereign coercive Power, in the room of others deposed, but were set up by inferior Persons, against others possessed of the Sees. I have already said, that it is not every one whom a small tumultuous Party shall get to be ordained, that aught to be received as a Bishop; but that which we maintain is this, That where the lawful Bishop is deposed by an irresistible Party, there the Successor may be acknowleged. Here I cannot but take notice, that before Majorinus, the Head of the Donatists, was made Bishop of Carthage by that Party, Caecilianus, who was first possessed of the See, was deposed by a Synod of no less than Seventy Bishops; yet was owned by the Catholic Church, to have been all along the rightful Bishop even before he was confirmed by the Synods of Rome and Arles; and the other Party was accounted Schismatical from the very beginning. This our Adversaries who are pleased to Talk so much of Synods, would do well to consider. He never was thrust out of his See by the Civil Power, and the Synod no Body valued, tho' it was Orthodox; he was therefore owned, because he was still in Possession.   

CHAP. XVIII. The Conclusion.  
Bishops deposed by the Civil Authority obliged even in common Charity to acquiesce. But whether they acquiesce or not, the Church is to submit to the present Possessor.  
I Have now done. And from what has been said, I think we may very well draw this Conclusion: That supposing a Bishop deprived by the Secular Power is unjustly and invalidly deprived; supposing likewise that he does not acquiesce, but still lays claim to his Bishopric; yet the Church may lawfully, and aught for peace sake, to receive the present Possessor, if otherwise unexceptionable.  
I shall here take my leave of those Readers to whom I have hitherto directed my Discourse, and address myself, with all due Reverence and Respect, to those reverend and worthy Persons, whose Dissatisfactions have occasioned the writing of this Treatise.  
If the Church is not obliged to adhere to an ejected Bishop who refuses to acquiesce, then 'tis certain that That Bishop, if he makes a Separation, is himself guilty of a Schism. We will now proceed to consider, in short, the Duty of an ejected Bishop; upon this Supposition, That there are some of our late Bishops that still lay Claim to the Obedience of their People, which, as has been observed in the Beginning of this Treatise, does not as yet sufficiently appear. And (for their sakes I speak it) may it never appear! We will suppose, if they please, that the Church ought not to submit to the present Possessor, unless the ejected Bishop gives his Consent. Let that be supposed. Yet if the Church, to avoid a Persecution, has actually done it, what then ought a good Bishop to do? Let us consider a little what the consequences of a Schism may be. To be engaged in a Schism, is, according to S. Cyprian, and our Adversaries themselves, to be out of the Church of Christ, and to be in a State of Damnation. And how can a good Bishop, one that ought to lay down even his Life for his Flock, see his People in a State of Damnation, when by only his communicating with his Successor, they may be redeemed? This deserves to be seriously considered.  
'Tis the Advice of S. Clement, Bishop of Rome, to some turbulent Persons of Corinth, who disturbed the Presbyters of the Church, that they should, if they could not agree, rather leave that place than disturb the Presbyters, and hinder 'em in the Discharge of their Duty. This place of S. Clement I formerly understood, as if he had given that advice to the Presbyters themselves, that they should rather withdraw than be the occasion of Schisms and Divisions; and so easy it is to mistake it, that it's acknowleged by even some of my Adversaries 
(a) 'Tis true, S. Clement not only advises the injured Presbyters at Corinth, but tells them it was their real Interest to withdraw. A farther Account of the Baroccian MS. p. 2. The Author of the Answer to a Treatise out of Eccles. Hist. p. 27. speaks doubtingly of it.  that I rightly understood it: But upon perusing S. Clement's Epistle a second time, I agree with the learned Vindicator, that this is his Meaning— utinam mihi sic semper disputare contingat, ut ad meliora proficiens, deseram quod ma●● tenebam. That I heartily say with S. 
(b) Adu. Luciferianos.  jerom. I could heartily wish that all were of the same Disposition: Caeterum scimus quosdam (I use S. 
(c) Ep. ad Steph. P.  Cyprian's words) quod semel imbiberunt nolle deponere, nec propositum suum facile mutare.  
That the Clergy ought not to be unjustly disturbed, is a thing we all agree in: It is likewise certain, that if they have Injury done 'em, they ought to have Amends made 'em. But the Question now is, Whether if the State has unjustly deposed 'em, and is resolved not to restore 'em, and the Church for Peace-sake has thought fit to submit, they that are injured ought not so to acquiesce, as that all People may be united, and the much greater Part retrieved from the Spiritual Danger to which they are obnoxious? I have produced in my Preface to the Baroccian Treatise some Examples to show how tender good Bishops have always been of their Flock and the Church's Peace. They deserve to be here also mentioned. When S. Gregory Nazianzen was Patriarch of Constantinople, and great Disturbances were raised in the Church on his account, he freely surrendered up his Right, and in the General Council of Constantinople, thus addressed himself to the Bishops: 'Tis a base and unworthy thing, my Colleagues and Co-pastors of the Flock of Christ, for you who teach others Peace, to stir up among yourselves an intestine War. For how shall you be able to reduce others to Concord, who differ and disagree among yourselves? By the Trinity itself I beseech you, to concert your Affairs peaceably and as becomes you. And if on my account there be any Dissensions, I am not better than the Prophet Ionas: Throw me into the Sea, and so shall you cease to be tossed by the tempest of Tumults. Whatsoever you shall think fit, tho' I am not guilty of any thing, I will willingly endure it, if by that means there may be Concord preserved. Depose me from my Throne. Cast me out of the City. This only I desire, that (to speak in the words of Zacharias) you would love Truth and Peace. When Nectarius was ordained, and fate as his Successor, he addressed himself to him, and desired him to take care against Heretics. As for my own private Troubles (says he) I do not so much as reckon 'em among Evils: I regard only the Afflictions of the Church. When the African Church was broken in pieces by the Schism of the Donatist's, all the Catholic Bishops of that Church, to the number of near 300, made the Donatists this Offer, That, if they pleased, all the Bishops of both Parties should resign their Bishoprics, and new ones, whom both Parties should acknowledge, should be chosen in their places: This Offer they publicly make in the first Conference of Carthage in their Epistle to Marcellinus the Emperor's 
(a) So I call him, because in the Conference he was depured by the Emperor Honorias to represent him as ●udge by a particular Commission. Because I did not call him by his old Title of Trib●o●● Notarius, one of my Answerers says he does not believe that I ever looked into S. Austin or the Conference of Carthage which I quoted. This both He, and all others, may rely upon, That I never quote Authors, but I have either read 'em myself or tell from whom I quote 'em.  Vicegerent. For why (say they I should we doubt to offer up in our Redeemer the Sacrifice of such a Humility. Did he descend into a Human Body from Heaven, that we might be Members of him, and shall we scruple to descend from our Thrones to preserve his Body from being torn in pieces by a cruel Division? 'Tis sufficient for us that we are faithful and obedient Christians: Let us therefore so continue. We are ordained Bishops for the sake of the People of Christ: That therefore which conduces to the peace of Christ's Church, let us do according to the Duty of Bishops. If we are profitable Servants, how can we prefer our Temporal Honours to the Eternal Rewards of our Lord. The Episcopal Dignity will be more advantageous to us, if, by being resigned, it may gather together the Flock of Christ, than if it disperses it by being retained. For with what face shall we hope for those Honours which are promised by Christ in the World to come, if our pretending to our Honours here in this World does hinder the Unity of the Church. Who can believe that these great Men, if they had been unjustly deposed by the Civil Authority▪ would therefore have broken the Peace of the Church, and separated from the Communion of their Successors? 'Tis a Saying of S. Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria, That Schism is more to be avoided than Idolatry itself; because by avoiding Idolatry, we consult only our ow● private Good, but by avoiding Schism, we consult the Good of all the whole Church. This he writes to Novatian, who had set up himself against Cornelius as Bishop of Rome. And he tells him, That if he was chosen against his Will (as he had pretended) he ought to show it by resigning voluntarily: That he ought to endure any thing that the Church of God might not be divided. This Authority our Adversaries are pleased to urge for themselves: But they do not consider how different their Case is from that of Cornelius. They do not consider, that Cornelius was never deposed, was still in Possession, still owned by all the Churches of the World, Novatian being owned but by a very small Party. If Cornelius had been irretrievably deposed by the Civil Power, if Novatian had been chosen by the Church in his place, and been owned by almost all, if such had been Cornelius' Case, who can believe but that S. Dionysius, who thought Schism worse than Idolatry, would have exhorted him to acquiesce, that so there might be an end put to the Schism? Our Adversaries ought to consider, that it is not the Session of the Bishops now in Possession, that can restore those that are deposed. And 'tis the Duty of every good Bishop to consider not what is his Right, but what is likely to conduce to the Peace of the Church. 'Tis his Duty, as S. Dionysius says, to endure any thing that the Church of God may not be divided.  
When 
(b) Socre l. 7. c. 3.  Theodosius Bishop of Synada, was deposed by the People, and Agapetus the Bishop of the Macedonian Heretics, was, upon his turning to the Orthodox Faith, together with his Followers, made Bishop in his stead, he appealed to Attic●s the Patriarch of Constantinople, but the Patriarch advising him to acquiesce, and to prefer the Go●d of the Public before his private advantage, he contented himself with a private Life. When Maximianus Bishop of Bagai in Africa, was opposed by his People who were not willing to be under him, he quietly gave up his Right, and he is highly praised for it by S. 
(a) Epist. 238. Long est quippe gloriostus. Episcopatus sarcinam propter Ecclesiae vitanda pericula deposuisse, quam propter regenda gubernacula sussepisse: Ille quippe se honorem si pacis ratio pateretur, dignè ●accipere potuisse demonstrat qui acceptum non dese●dit INDIGN— Retribuatur ei pux ●terna, quae promisa est Ecclesi●e, qui intellexit si●i non expedire quod paci non expediat Ecclesiae.  Austin. It is far more glorious (says S. Austin on that occasion) to give up ones Bishopric, for the securing the Church from Dangers, than to take it upon one. For he who does not unworthily defend the Honour he received, plainly shows, that he would have been worthy of it, if the Church's Peace would have permitted him to keep it.— May Maximianus be repaid with that everlasting Peace, which is promised the Church, because he esteemed that, not expedient for him, which was not expedient for the Church. Those many Examples of a peaceable Acquiescence, which we have produced in the foregoing Discourse, I shall not here repeat. I shall not mention the Example of S. Elias Patriarch of jerusalem, nor that of Eutychius, Patriarch of Constantinople, nor that of S. Anastasius, Patriarch of Antioch, nor those of S. Eustathius, and Euphemius. I shall not mention that Ignatius Patriarch of Constantinople declared, that if Photius had been otherwise unexceptionable, he would have yielded to him: Neither shall I mention, that S. Martin, when in Banishment, prayed for his Successor. These and many more Examples of a peaceful and pious Acquiescence, I leave to the serious Consideration of those that are concerned.  
It's alleged by the Author of a late Pamphlet, Entitled, Of Christian Communion to be kept on in the Unity of Christ's Church, that the ejected Bishops are not obliged to acquiesce, but rather to Act still as Bishops; because it is the Duty of all Bishops and Clergymen to stand to, and preach up, all good Doctrines: but (says he) if they should resign, there are some good Doctrines, which in these times will not be defended. This is the Sum of all that concerns us. In answer to which, I shall only desire the Author to consider, that according to that Notion there is no Separation, but what may easily be defended. What Dissenter is there amongst us, that can't make the same Plea?  
I desire to be pardoned, for presuming to offer my Advice. I can truly say of those reverend Men, what S. Cyprian does of Maximus and his Associates, who were erewhile Confessors, and afterwards engaged in a Schism. 
(b) Ep. 54. Ad Maximum & caeteros Confessores, ex Schismate ad Ecclesiam reversos. Dolebam vehementer & graviter angebar quod cum cis communicare non possum quos semel diligere caepissem.  I am extremely sorry, that I cannot Communicate with those whom I had begun to love. God grant, that like Maximus and his Associates, they that were lately our Confessors, may be again united to the Church. I cannot but grieve when I consider those Persons in a Meetinghouse, whom I so much loved and reverenced in the Tower.  
FINIS.    

ADDENDA.  
P. 4. l. 12. after the words, cannot be imputed as a fault; add, In an Epistle of P. Felix IX. 
(a) Ap. Acta Concilii juxta Graeo●s VIII. p. 276.  to the Emperor Basilius Macedo, we have several other Autorities of the Ancient Popes collected, to show, That the Laws and Customs of the Church ought to give place to Necessity and Convenience. When Necessity (says Pope 
(b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Gelasius) does not require the contrary, the Decrees of the Fathers ought to be observed. So 
(c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Pope Leo; who adds, But where there is Necessity and Force, there let him that governs so order Matters, as the Conveniency of the Churchrequires. We ought to consider (says 
(d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Pope Felix) That when there is a Necessity, the Constitutions of the Fathers are oftentimes transgressed. To all which I add the Authority of Pope Pelagius II. For a Bishop to be translated from one See to another is directly against a Canon of the Council of Nice; and for the observation of this Canon Pope Pelagius zealously contends; yet he adds withal, That if Necessity, or the Good of the Church requires it, it is lawful to act contrary to it; and he says, That they that think otherwise, do not understand the Nature of the Laws of the Church. They do not well understand (says 
(e) Ep. 1. Ad Benignum Archiep. Non benè intelligunt Ecclesiasticas Regulas, qui hoc negant causâ utilitatis aut necessitatis fieri posse, quoties communis utilitas aut necessitas persuaserit.  he) the Ecclesiastical Rules, who deny▪ That it may be done for Conveniency or Necessity's sake when the Public Good or Necessity requires.   

The Principal ERRATA are these.  
PAg ●0. l. 24, 25. and in several other places, Sense for Sense. p. 20. Note 1. l. 2. write occisioni. p. 24. l. 2. in deposing p. 27. l. 2. had hid himself. p. 34. l. 35. conclude from the words. p. 37. l. 9 Thebuthi. p. 45● note 3. l. 4. constituto. p. 51. l. 32. there are some. p. 59 note 4. l 2. Viro. p. 61. l. 37. Gelasius. That. p. 62. l. 6. Epistles. And. p. 63. l. ult. occulente. p. 64. l. 4. the Pope's excommunicating Acacius. p 65. l. 9 broke off only upon. p. 61. l. 1.— §. 6. In the Year 483. p. 67. note 3. l. 18. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 68 l. 30. Apollonias. ibid. note 1. l. 9 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 69. l. 20. only upon p. 71. l. 8. Theophanes: The. p. 86. note 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 90. l. 29. confuted. Though p. 91. l. 3. Diaconas. Least. p. 97. l. 31. p. 98. l. 33. Nicephorus the Patriarch. p. 100 l. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 101. l. 26. who resided p. 105 l. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. l. 33. Nicelas Paphlago. p. 106 l. 27. Biclariensis l. 29. Faith. Under. p. 107. n. 3. l. 16. Patriarcham Const. p. 110 ● ult. l. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 118. l. 29. from him that before p. 121. l. 15. à Potestatibus. p. 122. l. 2. was the great p. 130. l. 6. consederant. l. 8. gestatorio. p. 132. n. 1. l. 9 false) and the business about which he writes was. p. 137. l. 3. Constantinus Copr. p. 139. l. 32. Characters. We p. 140. n. 6. who says he had. p. 141. n. 5. p. 150 n. 5. p. 152, etc. Nicolaus p 147. l. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 150. n. 4. l. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 188. n. 4. l. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. What Errors there may be in the following Pages, which the Author has not seen, the Reader is desired to correct.   

THE CASE of SEES VACANT By an Unjust or Uncanonical DEPRIVATION, STATED.  
In Reply to a TREATISE ENTITLED A Vindication of the Deprived Bishops, etc. TOGETHER WITH The several other Pamphlets lately published as Answers to the BAROCCIAN TREATISE.  
By HUMPHREY HODY, D. D. Fellow of Wadh. Coll. in Oxford.  
Abstineamus nos à Convitiis ne tempus inaniter impendamus, & ad i● quod agitur inter nos potius advertamus. S. Aug. Ep. ad Pascentium Comitem.  
Non ●nim vincimur, quando offeruntur nobis meliora, sed instruimur; maximè in his, qua ad Ecclesia unitatem pertinent, & spei & fidei nostrae veritatem. S. Cypr.  
LONDON, Printed by I. H. for Henry Mortlock, at the Phoenix in St. Paul's Churchyard. MDCXCIII.   

Imprimatur.  
Geo. Royse, R. R more in Christo Patri ac Dº Dº johanni Archiep. Cantuar. à Sacris Domest. Decemb. 1. 1692.   

To the most Reverend Father in God JOHN, By Divine Providence Lord Archbishop of CANTERBURY His GRACE Primate of all England and Metropolitan.  
May it please your Grace,  
THis Treatise being designed for the Service of the Church as at present Established, I presume to make your Grace this humble offer of it. It must be confessed that the greatness of the Subject deserves a more able Manager: but, my Lord, that favourable Acceptance with which you were pleased to honour the Baroccian Treatise, has encouraged me to hope, that your Grace will likewise be pleased to accept of these Endeavours, and to excuse and pardon the Defects of  
Your GRACE's Most dutiful Servant, HUMPHREY HODY.   

To the Reader.  
THere are two things which they that separate from the Communion of the Church on the account of Bishops deposed by the Civil Authority, are obliged to make out, to justify themselves from the Charge of Schism:  
1. That the Civil Power has no Authority in any Case whatever to deprive a Bishop of his See.  
2. That no Bishop that is put into the place of another deposed by an incompetent Authority ought to be owned.  
If they cannot make out both these Propositions, they do nothing at all. For if we may lawfully submit to a Bishop put into the place of another deprived by the Civil Power, tho' the Civil Power had no Authority to deprive, it must thence follow that They are guilty of Schism who separate from the Church on such an account, because there is nothing can justify a Separation from the Church, when we may lawfully communicate with it.  
But on the other Side, the Case is quite different. They that own the present Possessor in opposition to one deposed by the Civil Power, are, to justify their Adherence to him, obliged to make out but only one thing: Either,  
1. That the Civil Power may lawfully deprive a Bishop of his See for Crimes (or reputed Crimes) purely Political: Such as are here supposed: or,  
2. That if it cannot lawfully do so, yet if it has actually done it, and another, unexceptionable on all other accounts, is established in the See, it is lawful, for Peace-sake, to own the Possessor.  
This Advantage We have of our Adversaries. The Baroccian Treatise, which I lately published, is a Proof of the last Proposition. It supposes, that Bishops deprived uncanonically, whether by Princes only, or by Synods, (it produces Examples of both kinds) are unjustly and invalidly deprived; yet shows, that we ought not to separate on that account from the Communion of the Present Possessor. Never was a poor Treatise more hardly and severely used by its Adversaries, than that has been! This was a Proposition that our Adversaries were not aware of. They were therefore highly concerned to employ all their Art to weaken the Authority of that Treatise. But for all the hard Names they have so liberally bestowed upon it, they are forced to confess by their Practice, that it carries with it a great deal of Strength. If to be opposed by seven several Answerers, the latter not satisfied with what the former had urged, be an Argument of Strength in a Treatise, we may still believe (and I hope it was so) that the finding it out at this Juncture had something of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in it.  
I presume the Reader will expect I should give him some Account of these seven several Answers which have been published against it. I shall lay down the Titles of 'em in the same Order as they came to my hands.  

1. The Oxford Antiquity examined, etc.  
2. An Answer to a Treatise out of Ecclesiastical History, translated from an ancient Greek MS. in the Public Library at Oxford, by Humphrey Hody, B. D. etc.  
3. Epistola ad Humfredum Hody, etc. de Tractatu à Scriniis Baroccianis Bibliothecae Bodleianae eruto, & ab illo nuper edito, conscripta.  
4. A farther Account of the Baroccian MS. lately published at Oxford.  
5. Reflections on the Greek MS. translated by Mr. Hody. This is not Printed, but was put into my hands in a MS.  
6. A Vindication of the Deprived Bishops, asserting their Spiritual Right against a Lay-Deprivation, against the Charge of Schism, etc.   
These six are professedly and entirely in Answer to the Baroccian Treatise. But the Author of this last mentioned was (I know not how) so unhappy as to mistake the Question. He writes against the Treatise as if the Design of it were to vindicate the Authority of the Civil Power in depriving Bishops: But that is not the Design of the Treatise; neither was it my Design in publishing it. And from this strange Mistake it comes to pass, that a great part of what that Author says is nothing at all to our Purpose.  

7. Unity of Priesthood necessary to the Unity of the Church, with some Reflections on the Oxford MS. and the Preface annexed.   
The Vindication of the Authority of the Civil Power in Depriving a Bishop for Political Crimes, I reserve for a particular Treatise. My Business at present is to manage the last Proposition, that advanced by the Baroccian Treatise. In Reply to these several Answers, I here present our Adversaries with an Impartial History of the Church's Behaviour (throughout all Ages) under Bishops put into the Places of others Deposed by a Lay, or otherwise Invalid, Sentence. I grant at present, that all Lay-Deprivations are invalid. I suppose the worst in all Cases. Suppose the Deprivation was not only uncanonical, but also unjust: Suppose the Depriver not only a Layman, but doubly unqualified by being likewise a Heretic: Suppose besides, that the ejected Bishop was deprived for adhering to the Truth, and for opposing Vice or Heresy: Notwithstanding all this, I assert, That if he was deprived by a Power irresistible, a Submission to the present Possessor (if otherwise unexceptionable) is lawful, and warranted by the general Practice of the Ancients.  
It is not my Design to detain my Reader long in a Preface. Only one or two things I desire of him.  
If any thing here in this Treatise seem long and tedious to him, I desire he would be pleased to consider, that my Design was to make this Discourse as perfect as I could, that so, if possible, it might put an End to this Controversy. And if our Adversaries shall be pleased to publish a Reply to what is here written, I desire he would seriously compare and weigh one Treatise with the other, consider if the main and more Substantial Parts of this Treatise are answered, then judge for himself, and not expect that of Course there must be another Reply. As I am not so vain as to think myself clear from Error, so neither am I conscious to myself of having been so Careless and Indiligent as to think I am often mistaken, I mean in things material. I hate everlasting Wrangle. And an Adversary that Cavils, and excepts against things not material, I shall think deserves a Reply as little as one that Rails.  
'Twill be hard, I know, to persuade our Adversaries, that the History I here present 'em, is (what I call it) Impartial. But this Assurance I give 'em: I have written nothing but what I myself believe. That may be; perhaps they will say: But you have not written all that you believe: You have not told all you know. Why truly, as to that, I know not what to answer. Since the Judgements of Men are so extremely different, as that some have fansyed that the Canons I omitted, when I published the Baroccian Treatise, are really a Part of that Treatise, and aught to have been published with it; there is nothing so Impertinent but what some or other may fancy I ought to have mentioned. I cannot promise but that there may be more Canons. But lest it should be suspected, that tho' I have produced many Instances for the Cause I have undertaken to defend, there are others, as good, and as many, that make against us, which I have designedly concealed; I shall here make this solemn Declaration: That if any of our Adversaries (I speak to all in general, but my Eye is particularly upon the learned Vindicator) can produce me any one single Instance from the time of Aaron, the first Highpriest of the jews, to this very day, of a High priest disowned by the jews, or a Bishop disowned by the Generality of the Catholic Church for this Reason, because put into the place of another deposed by the Civil Authority: If they can show me, I say, any one single Instance, I shall own myself obliged for the Instruction. I assure my Reader, that after a nice and very curious Search I know not one.  
Should our Adversaries be able to produce such an Example (as I think they will never be able) 'twill advantage their Cause but little, especially if it be one of the later Ages, since it is not agreeable to the Practice of the Church in general. But if they are not able to produce so much as one single Example, how rashly have they acted, who have separated themselves from the Church on such an account!  
I conclude in the Words of Drusius, which I here make my own: Scripsi haec animo juvandi, non laedendi. Si laesi quempiam, jam me poenitet. Si offendi pias aures, monitus lubenter mutabo. Si erravi uspiam, monstretur mihi error, non ero pertinax.  
☞ Pag. 5. lin. 40. Whatsoever is notoriously repugnant to the Church's Interest, so as to be necessarily productive of very great Evils, is so far from being obliging, that it would be a Sin to act according to it.— Lest that Proposition should be misunderstood; after the words, of very great Evils: add (I speak of Oaths of Canonical Obedience).   

THE CONTENTS.  

CHAP. I.  
The Reasonableness of submitting to the present Possessor, if otherwise unexceptionable, tho' the Predecessor was unjustly or invalidly deposed by the Secular Power, demonstrated. Objections answered. No obligation to the contrary by the Oath of Canonical Obedience. The Authority of S. Cyprian unreasonably alleged by our Adversaries. The Vindicator's Notion of Heresy not at all to his Purpose. Page 1.   

CHAP. II.  
That the jewish High-priests, who were put into the places of others (unjustly) Deposed by the Civil Authority, were all along owned and received as true High-priests. An Account of all those High-priests, from the Reign of King Solomon, to the Destruction of Jerusalem. The Instance of Abiathar and Zadok nicely examined. The Practice of the Jews, and God's Approbation of such High-priests a sufficient Warrant to us. Page 16.   

CHAP. III.  
That our Saviour himself, and his Apostles, acknowleged and communicated with those High-priests, who were put into the Places of others unjustly deposed by the Civil Authority, as true High-priests. Mr. Selden's Conjecture, That in the Histories of the New Testament, as often as there is mention made of the Highpriest, is to be understood not the Highpriest, properly so called, but the Prince of the Sanhedrin, confuted. A Reply to an Answer of our Adversaries, concerning the Reason why the Jews, our Saviour, and the Apostles submitted to the present Possessor. Page 33.   

CHAP. IU.  
That the Ancient Christians submitted all along to such Bishops (if accounted Orthodox) as were put into the Places of others deposed by the Secular Power, though never so unjustly. No Examples, either for or against us, in the three first Centuries, all the Emperors being then Heathens. The Example of Felix II. Bishop of Rome, the put into the place of Liberius, unjustly deposed by the bare Authority of the Emperor Constantius, and against Liberius' consent, yet he's owned by all that accounted him Orthodox, by the Roman Clergy; among them, by the famous Damasus, who was afterwards Pope. He is owned as Metropolitan by the Bishops of the District of Rome. His Ordinations are allowed of as valid, by even his Adversary Liberius. He has been all along owned by the Church, as a Saint, and true Pope. Page 40.   

CHAP. V.  
The Catholics of Alexandria reject Lucius, because he was an Arian, not because his Predecessor Peter, was unjustly deposed by the Emperor. Our Adversaries Doctrine not known to the said Peter. §. 1. S. Briccius of Tours deposed by the People. Yet Justinian and Armentius his Successors, are owned as true Bishops of Tours. Armentius is owned as true: Bishop by S. Briccius himself, though he had never given up his Right, but had always claimed it. §. 2. S. Euthymius refuses to communicate with Theodosius, Patriarch of Jerusalem, because he was a Heretic, and had embrued his hands in the Blood of many Persons, not because the Patriarch Juvenalis, whose See he had usurped, was still living. Theodosius' Ordinations are allowed of as valid. §. 3. Acacius, Patriarch of Constantinople, refuses to communicate with Timotheus Aelurus, not because he was put into the place of Timotheus Salofuciolus, unjustly deposed by the Heretical Usurper Basiliscus, but because he was a Heretic and a Parricide. §. 4. Jo. Talaias', the Orthodox Patriarch of Alexandria being deposed by the bare Authority of the Emperor Zeno, though he still laid claim to the See, yet Petrus Mongus his Successor, is acknowleged by all that accounted him Orthodox, by Acacius and Fravitas, Patriarches of Constantinople by Martyrius Patriarch of Jerusalem, by (almost) all the Bishops of the Eastern Church; That they who refused to communicate with Mongus, viz. the Western Bishops, the Bishops of Dardania, etc. did it only because they thought him a Heretic; That Euphemius Patriarch of Constantinople communicated with him till he found him to be a Heretic, than forsook his Communion. Pope Simplicius, when he heard that Talaias' was to be deposed, was well enough satisfied, till he understood, that Mongus, whom he accounted a Heretic, was designed for his Successor. Whether Orthodox Bishops unjustly ejected by the Emperor be restored, or new Orthodox Bishops be created, he values not, he only desires that they that are made Bishops should be Orthodox. Pope Felix III. not at all concerned for Talaias' being deprived without a Synod, only dislikes that one, whom he accounted a Heretic, was constituted in his place. §. 5. Calendion Patriarch of Antioch, being deposed by the Emperor Zeno, without any Synod, the Orthodox Bishops, viz. Pope Felix III. Quintianus Asculanus, Justinus Siculus, Acacius Constantinopolitanus, Antheon Arsinoites, Faustus Apolloniates, Pamphilus Abydensis, Asclepiades of Trallium, etc. refuse to communicate with his Successor, Petrus Gnapheus, only because he was a Heretic; take no notice of his being constituted in the room of one Unsynodically deposed, and are ready to communicate with him as a true Patriarch of Antioch, if he will but forsake his Heresy. Page 57   

CHAP. VI  
Macedonius Patriarch of Constantinople being violently Deposed by the Heretical Emperor Anastasius, his Successor Timotheus is acknowleged by all that accounted him Orthodox, though at the same time they professed that the Deprivation of Macedonius was unjust, and could never be induced by any Terrors to subscribe to it, viz. by Flavianus Patriarch of Antioch, Elias Patriarch of Jerusalem, the Abbot of the Monastery of Studium, the (Orthodox) People of Constantinople, by the great Abbots of Palestine, S. Sabas, and S. Theodosius, and by all Palestine in general, at that time exceedingly flourishing for its zealous Profession of the Orthodox Faith. The Calumnies of the Vindicator concerning the Apostasy of the Patriarches Flavianus and Elias, confuted. Timotheus not known to them to be a Heretic when they communicated with him. They are Honoured by the Church as Saints. Page 70.   

CHAP. VII.  
Flavianus Patriarch of Antioch being deposed by the Emperor Anastasius, his Successor Severus is rejected by the Orthodox only because he was a Heretic. Elias Patriarch of Jerusalem being violently deposed by the said Emperor, his Successor John is immediately acknowleged by all the People, though at the same time they hated him: by the whole Church of Palestine; particularly the two great Abbots, S. Sabas and S. Theodosius, so famous for their Vndauntedness and Sanctity: by Johannes Cappadox Patriarch of Constantinople, and all the Greek Church: by all the whole Church ever since those Tunes. The Testimony of Photius Patriarch of Constantinople out of a Manuscript. The old Patriarch Elias, though so Tyrannically Deprived for adhering to the Orthodox Faith, continues however to communicate with those who acknowleged his Successor. Page 81.   

CHAP. VIII.  
S. Silverius Bishop of Rome being violently deposed by Belisarius the Emperor Justinian's General, his Successor Vigilius, though put into his place so deprived, though constituted by the bare Authority of Belisarius against the consent of the Clergy, and though Silverius never gave up his Right, is owned and received by the 5th. General Council, and by all the Church, as a true Pope. He was generally owned whilst Silverius himself was living. Baronius' conjecture concerning his being again ordained after Silverius' Death confuted, though for some time he communicated with Heretics, yet it was not known to the Orthodox who communicated with him. Page 90.   

CHAP. IX.  
Macarius, Patriarch of Jerusalem, being deposed by the Emperor Justinian, his Successor Eustochius is owned as a true Patriarch by the Fifth General Council and the whole Catholic Church. After some time Eustochius himself is deposed by the Emperor, and Macarius, being restored, is received by the Church. According to our Adversaries Principles, either Eustochius, or Macarius, after his Restauration, was no true Patriarch: yet the Church received both. Page 97.   

CHAP. X.  
Eutychius Patriarch of Constantinople being violently deposed by the Emp. Justinian for refusing to subscribe to his Heresy, John surnamed Scholasticus is made Patriarch in his room. After John was consecrated Patriarch, Eutychius was condemned by an Assembly that consisted as well of Lay Lords as Bishops, not only of ecclesiastics as the Vindicator contends. He actually lays claim to the See, despises the Sentence of his judges as null and invalid, because they proceeded unjustly and uncanonically against him, and Excommunicates them. Notwithstanding all this, his Successor, because he proved Orthodox, was received and owned by all the Church as a true Patriarch: He continued in the See near 13 years; near 12 years under Justin the Younger an Orthodox Emp. He is owned by the Church of Constantinople, tho' at the same time Eutychius was exceedingly beloved. John an Orthodox Patriarch of Alexandria is consecrated by him. For what reason Anastasius Patriarch of Antioch reproved the Patriarch of Alexandria for being ordained by him. Anastasius did not refuse to communicate with him. He is Honoured by the Patriarch Photius with the Title of Saint. Tho' Eutychius looked upon his Deprivation as absolutely invalid, and tho' he never resigned but accounted himself still the rightful Patriarch, yet he lived quietly, and never endeavoured to make a Division in the Church. Dr. Crakanthorp's Opinion, that Eutychius was deposed for being a Heretic, confuted. The Authority of the Life of Eutychius, often quoted in this Chapter, vindicated against the same Author. Page 101.   

CHAP. XI.  
S. Anastasius, Senior, Patriarch of Antioch, being deposed without any Synod by the Emperor Justin, junior, tho' he never resigned, yet his Successor Gregory is owned by all the Church. He continued Patriarch till his Death, for the space of 23 Years, the old Patriarch Anastasius being all the while living. Four Saints among those that lived at that time and communicated freely with him: S. simeon Stylites, junior, Pope Gregory the Great, S. Eulogius Patriarch of Alexandria, S. John Nesteutes Patriarch of Constantinople. Pope Gregory communicates with him as Patriarch of Antioch, tho' at the same time he declares Anastasius' Deprivation to be invalid, and looks upon Anastasius to be the rightful Patriarch. S. Anastasius, though deposed by the Lay-power, and though he had never given up his Right, yet never left the Communion of the Church. Page 121.   

CHAP. XII.  
S. Martin, Pope of Rome, being deposed without any Synod, and banished by the Heretical Emperor Constans, tho' he never resigned, yet Eugenius is chosen his Successor by the Clergy of Rome, tho' at the same time they were zealous. Assertors of the Orthodox Faith, and had likewise a great love for S. Martin. Eugenius is received and owned by all as a true Pope, and has been honoured all along by the Church as a Saint. S. Martin himself owns him as a true Pope, and prays to God for him as such. Page 128.   

CHAP. XIII.  
Callinicus Patriarch of Constantinople being deposed without any Synod by the Emperor Justinianus Rhinotmetus, his Successor Cyrus is received as a true Patriarch. §. 1. So likewise is Nicetas who was put into the place of the Patriarch Constantine deposed without any Synod by the Emperor Constantinus Copronymus. §. 2. Page 135.   

CHAP. XIV.  
An Account of the Schism between Photlus and Ignatius, Patriarches of Constantinople. Photius who was put into Ignatius' place when deposed by the Emperor, no such Person as his Enemies report him. By how great a Party he was received. The reason why some refused to acknowledge him was not so much, because he was so constituted, as because he was a Neophytus, and was besides ordained by a Bishop Excommunicated, and (in their judgements) stood himself Excommunicated at that time. Ignatius professes, that if Photius had been one of the Church, i. e. if he had not been an Excommunicated Person at the time of his Consecration, he would willingly have yielded to him. Ignatius values the Councils that condemned him no more than he did the Lay power. The Vindicator in an Error concerning that Matter. His Errors concerning the Council called the First and Second. A New account of the reason of that Title. His Error concerning the Greatness of the Synod of Rome, called by P. Nicholas against Photius. Photius after he was received by the Church, and confirmed by a general Council, is deposed by the bare Authority of the Emperor Leo; yet his Successor Stephen is received by the Church. Page 139.   

CHAP. XV.  
Nicolaus Mysticus, Patriarch of Constantinople; not deprived by a Synod, as the Vindicator contends, but by the Emperor (Leo the Wife.) §. 1. Joseph Bishop of Brixia in Italy deposed without any Synod by King Berengarius, yet his Successor Antony is owned and received by the Church, particularly by the Pope, the Synods of Augspurg and Ravenna; and continued in the See many years. §. 2. Basilius Camaterus, and Nicetas Muntanes, Patriarches of Constantinople, deposed without any Synod by the Emperor Isaacius Angelus, yet no Division in the Church on their account. §. 3, 4. The Patriarches of the present Greek Church very frequently deprived by the Turk, yet no Division in the Church. As great Reason to submit to the present Possessor here, as in the Greek Church. The Necessity the same. Page 170.   

CHAP. XVI.  
The Sentence of an Uncanonical Synod, esteemed by the Ancients invalid. S. Chrysostom Patriarch of Constantinople, unjustly and invalidly deposed by a Synod. He declares however at first, against all Separation from the Church on his Account. He afterwards yields to Resentment, and refuses to Communicate with his Successors, Arsacius, and Atticus, because they had been his Enemies, and had a hand in his Deprivation. The Joannites acted by their Passions, not by Principles. They separate from the Church, not because there was another made Patriarch in S. Chrysostom's place, but before that was done. Arsacius being made Patriarch they refuse to Communicate with him, not because he was put into S. Chrysostom's place, but through Hatred against St. Chrysostom's Deposers, because they frequented his Churches. Pope Innocent of Rome not consistent with himself. His Practice contradicts his Words. He did not think Arsacius and Atticus no Bishops. His Zeal for the Honour of his own See, the chief Cause of his Opposing 'em. He at last receives Atticus as a true Patriarch: The Vindicator's Exception against the Translation of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Baroccian Treatise, confuted. The Eastern Bishops refuse to separate from the Communion of the Church, tho' S. Chrysostom laid Claim to his See, and actually separated, and tho' they esteemed his Deprivation invalid. So did the Monks of Egypt. The Testimony of S. Nicon, out of a MS. S. Nicon himself, tho' he esteemed his Deprivation extremely unjust; yet approves of those that did not separate on his Account. S. Chrysostom takes it for granted, as a thing of Course, that all would immediately resolve to choose a new Patriarch in his room. The Patriarch Atticus highly esteemed by the whole African Church. The Ecclesiastical Historian, Socrates, disapproves of S. Chrysostom's Deprivation; yet speaks of Arsacius and Atticus, as of true Patriarches. Theodoret extremely offended at the Injustice of his Deposers, yet reckons both Arsacius and Atticus among the Patriarches of Constantinople. They are both owned in all the Catalogues of the Patriarches. Their Ordinations never questioned by any. Atticus praised by P. Celestine I. and owned to be a true Successor of S. Chrysostom. Page 176.   

CHAP. XVII.  
Deprivations by Heretical Synods invalid. S. Eustathius, Patriarch of Antioch, deposed by an Heretical Synod; he himself accounts his Deprivation invalid. The Orthodox separate from the Communion of his Successors, not because he was invalidly deprived, but because they accounted them Heretics. Eustathius acts as Bishop of Antioch, tho' in banishment, as long as his Successors were Heretics; but as soon as Meletius, an Orthodox Person, was ordained his Successor, he desisted, and concerned himself no more as Bishop of Antioch. That he lived till Meletius was made Patriarch, demonstrated against Baronius, Valesius, etc. Why some of the Orthodox refused to submit to Meletius. The Vindicator's Assertion, That none accounted Meletius an Arian whilst he was Bishop, confuted. The Schism between the Meletians and the Paulinists no Example against us. §. 1, 2. The Instance of Maximus and Cyril of Jerusalem examined. §. 3. Euphemius, Patriarch of Constantinople, deposed by an Heretical Synod; yet Macedonius, an Orthodox and a good Man, accepts of his See, tho' he owned him to be the rightful Patriarch. Macedonius is received by the Catholics, tho' they loved Euphemius and accounted him unjustly deprived. He is owned by S. Elias Bishop of Jerusalem, tho' Elias at the same time declared Euphemius' Deprivation unjust, and refused to subscribe to it. §. 4. The Schisms of the Novatians, Donatists, and Meletians of Egypt, no Examples against us. §. 5. Two Fragments of Photius out of a M S. §. 1, 3. Page 186.   

CHAP. XVIII. The Conclusion.  
Bishops deposed by the Civil Authority obliged even in common Charity to acquiesce. But whether they acquiesce or not, the Church is to submit to the present Possessor. Page 196.    

The CASE of SEES Vacant, by an Unjust or Uncanonical Deprivation, Stated, etc.  

CHAP. I.  The Reasonableness of submitting to the present Possessor, if otherwise unexceptionable, tho' the Predecessor was unjustly or invalidly deposed by the Secular Power, demonstrated. Objections answered. No obligation to the contrary by the Oath of Canonical Obedience. The Authority of S. Cyprian unreasonably alleged by our Adversaries. The Vindicator's Notion of Heresy not at all to his Purpose. 
THE Doctrine maintained by the Author of the Baroccian Treatise, is this; That supposing a Bishop deprived without any Synod by the Civil Power, is unjustly deprived; yet neither He himself, nor the People, aught to separate from the Communion of his Successor, provided that Successor is not a Heretic. In answer to that Treatise, it is alleged by some of our Adversaries, That not only Heresy, but Schism likewise, and Excommunication make a Person uncapable of being received as a Bishop. It is manifest, says one of our 
* An Answer to a Treatise out of Eccles. History, etc. in the Preface.  Answerers, that the Principles advanced by the Author of the Baroccian Treatise, make all Church-Censures ineffectual, and expose the Church to all the Mischiefs of Erastianism. For if a Prince should prefer an excommunicated Person to the See of the Bishop, by whom he stands excommunicated, supposing only that he was not excommunicated for Heresy, this Person, tho' never so justly excommunicated, must be owned and obeyed instead of the Bishop who excommunicated him; which lodges all Church-Power in the Prince, and makes all Ecclesiastical Censures of no effect for the Benefit and Preservation of the Church, whenever he pleases. All this He very well knew was nothing at all to his Purpose, and nothing against either ours, or our Author's Cause: But he likewise knew, it would have been less to his Purpose to have told his Reader so. To avoid all impertinent Cavil, that we may not run off from the Scope and Design of our Writing, I shall take leave to alter the last Clause of the Proposition thus: Provided that Successor be in all other Respects such whose Communion no good Catholic can justly refuse.  
§. 2. Having laid down fairly our Proposition, and secured it (if that may be possible) from all Cavil, We will now proceed to demonstrate the Truth of it. And this we shall do, first, from the Reasonableness of it; and, 2dly. from the Authority and Practice of the Ancients; by which the Reasonableness of it will more certainly and evidently appear.  
§. 3. First from the Reasonableness of it: And that is grounded on this certain and self-evident Maxim, That whatsoever is necessary for the present Peace and Tranquillity of the Church, that aught to be made use of, provided it is not in itself sinful, and the ill Consequences, which may possibly attend it, are either not so mischievous to the Church, or at least not so likely to happen as the Evils we endeavour to avoid. That this was a Maxim of the Ancients, We shall easily find, if we please but to cast our eyes back upon their Times, and consider those Methods, which were wont to be made use of in the Church. We shall find, that in all manner of Cases, They always preferred the Peace and Tranquillity of the Church to all other Things, the Essentials of Religion excepted. There was no Custom or Law of the Church so sacred and inviolable, but what they readily sacrificed, whensoever Necessity required, to the Peace and Tranquillity of it. If the exact Observation of the received Customs and Canons of the Church was not like to conduce to the present Peace and Tranquillity of it, they were readily superseded, and Necessity and Convenience became the only Legislators. To prefer a Rule of the Church to the Welfare and Prosperity of it, and to stand to the Saying of a Father in Opposition to a Law of Necessity, is a sort of Theological Pedantry, which They were not guilty of. They were wont to consider like truly Wise men, the Circumstances and the Exigencies of the Times; and they knew that those Customs and Canons of the Church, which were proper in the Times of Peace, could never indispensably oblige in Times of a different Complexion. To prevent, or to heal the Diseases of the Church, they acted like Philosophers, not like Empirics; considered what ought to be done in this and that particular Case; what was truly expedient, not what had been prescribed when the Symptoms were not the same. Tho' of all the General Councils, there was none so revered as the Nicene; and tho' among all the Canons of that Council there was none so Religiously and so Universally observed, as that which makes it unlawful for any one City to have two Bishops; and altho' that had always been a 
* S. Cypr. Ep. 55. ad Anton. ●rgo ille evangelii vindex, ignorabat unum Episcopum esse oportere in Ecclesiâ Catholicâ, says Cornelius Bishop of Rome in his Epistle to Fabius of Antioch Ap. Euseb. Hist. l. 6. c. 43. concerning Novatian. To have two Bishops in one and the same City is adversum fas Sacerdotii singularis, says Pacianus Epist. 3. ad Sympronianum Novatianum.  Rule of the Catholic Church long before the time of that Council; yet S. Augustine, and all the other Catholic Bishops of Africa, thought fit to 
(a) Collat. Carthag. 1. c. 16.  propose that Expedient to their Adversaries the Donatists, for the putting an End to their Schism. And the same Expedient was 
(b) Theodores Hist. Eccl. l. 5. c. 3.  proposed 
(c) And by the Synod of Sirmium to the Clergy and People of Rome in the Case of Felix and Liberius, as Sozome● says, l. 4. c. 15. but that Synod was not Orthodox, but Arion.  by Meletius Bishop of Antioch to the Anti-bishop Paulinus, for the putting an End to that Schism that was between them. Thus when Queen Chrodielde of France had made the Bishops Theodorus and Proculus Archbishops of Tours 
(a) Greg. Turon. Hist. l. 10. c. 3●.  together the whole Gallican Church (because they were both very old, and so the Inconvenience of suffering it was not like to be so great as that of opposing the Queen) very freely acknowedged 'em. And tho' it is expressly forbidden by the aforesaid 
(b) Can. 4.  Council of Nice, and likewise by the more ancient Canons or Rules of the Church, That one Bishop alone should Ordain another; and three at least are positively required by that Council, how great soever the Necessity may be; tho' it were moreover unlawful for any one to be Ordained a Bishop without the Consent of the Metropolitan, and a Bishop so Ordained is declared 
(c) Can. 6.  by that Council uncapable of governing as a Bishop: Yet when Siderius had been ordained Bishop of Palehisca by 
(d) Synesius Epist. 67.  the single Bishop of Cyrene (a bold and resolute Man, one who often transgressed the Orders of his Superiors) and that too without the knowledge of S. Athanasius the Metropolitan; because of the badness of the Times, (it being in the Reign of the Arian Emperor Valens,) Athanasius allowed of his Orders: and because he was Orthodox, he was so far from depriving him of his Bishopric, that he preferred him to a greater. He 
(e) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  yielded, saith Synesius, to the Necessity of the Times. 'Tis a Saying of the same Author, (himself a Bishop, and a very great Man,) where he speaks concerning that Matter; viz. in one of his Epistles to the Patriarch of Alexandria, Theophilus: 
(f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  In dangerous Times it is necessary not to observe Rules. Tho' nothing was more unlawful than to be made a Bishop Simoniacally, or by the mere Force of the Lay-power; and tho' (as the Author of the 
(g) S. Silverius levatus est à Theodato Tyranno sine deliberatione Decreti: qui Theodatus corruptus pecuniâ datâ talem timorem induxit Clero, u● qui non consentiret in ejus Ordinationem gladio puniretur. Qui quidem Sacerdotes non subscripserunt in eum secundùm morem antiquum vel Decretum confirmaverunt ante Ordinationem: jam verò ordinato sub vi & metu Silverio propter adunationem Ecclesiae & Religionis postmodum sic subscripserunt Episcopi.  Pontifical attests) Silverius obtained the Popedom of Rome by both those unlawful Means; yet after he was Ordained, the Peace of the Church requiring it, he was owned and received by all. He had given a Sum of Money to the Tyrant Theodatus, the King of the Goths, and the Tyrant threatened, that whosoever refused to consent to his Election should be punished with Death. The Bishops however refused to subscribe, and so he was made Pope without any consent of theirs. But after he was Ordained (says the Author of the Pontifical) they subscribed for the sake of the Unity of the Church and of Religion. Tho' the Synod of C P. before whom the Patriarch Alexius was accused for his having been promoted to that Dignity by the bare authority of the Emperor, without the Votes of the Clergy, looked upon his Promotion to be altogether unlawful; yet when he pleaded, that he had Ordained many Bishops, and, that if they deprived him, they must likewise deprive all those whom he had Ordained; upon that bare 
(h) Zonara's Annal. p. 190.  Consideration, because to Deprive so many was likely to occasion a great Disturbance in the Church, they overruled the Accusation, and determined nothing against him. When Calendion was made Patriarch of Antioch by the Emperor Zeno; and Ordained by Acacius the Patriarch of C P. tho' that 
(a) Simplicius Papa in Epist. ad Zinonens Imp.  was unlawful by the 
* By which it is enacted, That all Bishops should be Ordained by Bishops of their respective Provinces. Can. 4.  Canon's of the Council of Nice, and directly contrary to the constant Custom of the Catholic Church; yet because it was done, as the Emperor and Acacius alleged, to avoid Seditions in Antioch, the Proceeding was approved of by Simplicius Bishop of Rome. Tho' I wish, 
(b) Epist. 16. ad Acacium. Quod sicut non optavimus fieri, ita faciles excusationi quam necessitas fecit exstitimus; quia quod voluntarium non est, non potest vocari in reatum.  says he, that it had not been done, yet I easily excused it, because it was done through Necessity: For that which is not voluntary (i.e. that which is done only for Convenience or Necessity's sake) cannot be imputed as a Fault. These Examples and Autorities may serve to show in general, That there are no Laws or Customs of the Church so sacred, but what our Wise Forefathers thought aught to be postponed to the present Welfare and Prosperity of it. That the same was their Opinion in reference to our particular Case, We shall hereafter show in its due Place.  
§. 4. Our Proposition being thus established on that sure Maxim, acknowledged (as has been shown) by the Ancients; That whatsoever is necessary for the Peace and Tranquillity of the Church, that aught to be made use of, provided that it is not in itself Sinful; and that the ill Consequences, which may possibly attend it, are either not so mischievous to the Church, or at least not so likely to happen, as the Evils we endeavour to avoid. There are two Things which I am obliged to make out; First, That the Submitting to a Bishop put into the place of another unjustly Deposed by the Civil Authority, is not in itself Sinful: And, 2dly. That the ill Consequences, to which it is liable, are either not so mischievous to the Church, or at least not so likely to happen, as the Evils we endeavour to avoid.  
§. 5. First, It is not in itself Sinful: For if it is so, it must be so for one, or more, of these following Reasons: Either, first, because it is forbidden by some express Law of God; Or, 2dly. because it makes us Accomplices in the Injustice; Or, 3dly. because of the Oath of Canonical Obedience, which the inferior Clergy have taken to their Bishop, and the inferior Bishops to their Archbishop; Or, lastly, because, as one of our Adversaries, the learned Vindicator, contends, such a Bishop as is placed in the room of one Deposed by the Civil Authority, is in reality no Bishop. These Objections I shall consider distinctly.  
§. 6. First, It is not against any Law of God. For as to our Case, the Scripture is altogether silent. 'Tis true, it Commands us to be obedient to our Governors, and that Command reaches as well to the Spiritual as to the Temporal: But when there are two that stand Competitors, and both claim our Obedience; to which of those two our Obedience ought to be paid, it leaves to our Wisdom to determine.  
§. 7. Neither, 2dly. does it make us Accomplices in the Injustice. For if a Landlord be unjustly and invalidly dispossessed of his Estate by an Incompetent Authority, Who thinks the Tenant an Accomplice in the Injustice, because he pays his Rent to the present Possessor? Should the Clergy refuse to submit to the Bishops in possession, it could only serve to draw down Ruin upon themselves? It cannot restore those whom the State has deposed. It is not our Submitting to the present Possessors, that ejects the former; for they are already irretrievably Deposed, since the Supreme Power is peremptory against 'em. That has publicly declared, that, whoever are our Bishops, the old ones shall govern us no longer. If we think the Proceeding unjust, 'tis enough that we remonstrate against it, and express our dissatisfaction. If that will not do, the Good of the Public obliges us to be quiet.  
§. 8. Neither, Thirdly, is it sinful on the account of the Oath of Canonical Obedience. For that is taken not absolutely and unconditionally, but with this Supposition, That the Bishop, to whom we take it, has power to govern us. If I take an Oath, to be faithful or obedient to a Governor, whether Civil or Ecclesiastical, I engage myself to him as a Governor, that is, as one that can govern: If therefore he can no longer govern, whatsoever the Impediment is, my Obedience is no longer engaged. As it is in the State, so it is in the Church: The Oath that is taken to a Bishop, as he is the Governor of a Church, is not taken for the sake of the Bishop, but for the Peace and good Order of the Church. 'Tis this was the Design of the Church when she ordered such an Oath to be taken. When therefore the Oath tends no longer to the Good of the Church, but notoriously to Schism, Disorder, and Confusion, it cannot any longer oblige: but is void of itself, by virtue of the Church's Intent and Design in the first Institution of it.  
It is further to be considered, that particularly here in the Church of England, the Oath of Canonical Obedience is always taken with this Supposition, That the Civil Power, as well as the Ecclesiastical, do allow the Bishop to govern.  
But let us suppose even that which in reason we ought not to suppose: Let us suppose, that the Bishop intended that the Oath should always oblige. Whatsoever was the Intent of the Bishop; That was not the Intent of the Church. And it is the Intent of the Church, not the private Intent of the Bishop, that gives an Obligation to the Oath. I add, That should it be both the Intent of the Bishop, and likewise the Intent of the Person who takes the Oath, that it should always oblige; should it run in these express words; I will always adhere to you, if Deposed by the Civil Authority, in opposition to him, whosoever he be, that shall be put into your place: Should any one, I say, take such an Oath as that, yet he cannot be obliged by it. The Oath is in itself unlawful, 'tis a Sin against the Public, repugnant to the Will and the Welfare of the Church. It would be in effect to swear thus: I will for your sake oppose the Welfare of the Public, and break the Union of the Church; I will leave the Communion of the Church, and adhere to you, tho' I have not any Reason to do so besides this bare Oath. To conclude; Whatsoever is notoriously repugnant to the Church's interest, so as to be necessarily productive of very great Evils, is so far from being obliging, that it would be a Sin to act according to it.  
It is granted by our Adversaries, that the Obligation of an Oath of Canonical Obedience ceases, if a Bishop is deprived, tho' never so unjustly by a Synod: Now what is the Reason of that? 'Tis because to adhere to a Bishop, when a Synod has fully deposed him, and placed another in his See, must occasion a Division in the Church, and disturb the Public. If that is the Reason, as no one can assign any other, (at least there can be none but what is grounded on that,) then the Reason is the same in both Cases: and consequently in both Cases though Oath will be equally void. 'Tis in vain to allege, That in the Case of a Synod we cease to be obliged by our Oath, because every Bishop is supposed to have obliged himself to submit to the Determination of a Synod; whether just or unjust; and therefore when a Synod has Deposed him, tho' by an unjust sentence, his Place is truly void by virtue of his supposed Consent: For suppose a Bishop should have always declared, that he never would give his Consent, that a Synod should have Power to Depose him by an unjust Sentence: ought we not however to submit to the new Constituted Bishop? Our Adversaries will tell us, that we ought. But why? 'Tis because the Necessity of Government and the Peace of the Church requires it. Well then; it is certain, that it is not the Bishop's Consent, but Necessity and the Good of the Public that makes our Oath void.  
Tho' in some Respects there is a great deal of Difference between what is done by a competent or a lawful Authority, and what is done by an incompetent or an unlawful Authority: yet, as to our Acquiescence, in a Case of Necessity, such as is here supposed, I can see no Difference at all, The Obligation to acquiesce is the same in both Cases, when in both Cases the Necessity is the same. If a Lord be dispossessed of his Manor by an Incompetent Authority that cannot be resisted, (a Conqueror, suppose, or an unlawful Court) Who thinks the Tenant forsworn for submitting to the new Possessor? Who makes any difference there between a Competent and an Incompetent Authority? And why is the Tenant in such a Case not forsworn? If he cannot (or ought not to) oppose the Intruder, yet ought he not at least to give up his Estate, rather than submit and do Homage to the wrong Lord? 'Twill be granted, I presume, by our Adversaries, that he is neither obliged to oppose the Intruder, nor yet to give up his Estate. But why does the Oath, which he took to the rightful Lord, cease to oblige him? 'Tis because when he took the Oath, he took it only on this Supposition, That the Lord was Possessed of the Manor. The Peace and Tranquillity of the Public, and the Good of Tenants in general give that Restriction to the Oath.  
If the Bishop of a Frontier Town will not own the Authority of a Conqueror, and is therefore Deposed by that Conqueror, I desire to know of our Adversaries, whether the Clergy of that Town are perjured if they own that Bishop whom the Conqueror thinks fit to set over 'em? If a Bishop should by the Civil Power be condemned to perpetual and close Imprisonment, or be banished forover from his Country, so as that it is impossible for him to perform the Duties of a Bishop: or should he be carried away Captive we know not where, or from whence we cannot redeem him: What then? Are we still obliged by our Oath, because he was Deposed by no Synod? When in the Beginning of the 3d. Century, 
* Euseb. Hist Eccl. l. 6. c. 10. / Narcissus Bishop of jerusalem, had secretly withdrawn himself, and no Body knew what was become of him, left the Church should be without the Assistance of a Bishop, there was presently a new one Ordained. How their Bishop was lost, they knew not: 'Twas enough that he was gone, and did not any longer Officiate. The Church, says S. Chrysostom, cannot be without a Bishop. That he said to his People, when he himself was to be carried away into Banishment; and on that account he advises 'em to accept of another for their Bishop.  
I easily foresee what will be the Reply of our Adversaries. They will tell us, That in such Cases we ought to presume, that the Bishop gives his Consent that his Successor should be acknowledged: That therefore the Oath does no longer oblige, because there is a rational Presumption, that the banished, the imprisoned, or the captive Bishop, and He of the Frontier Town, do remit the Obligation of it. To this I answer: 1. It is indeed to be presumed, that a good Bishop, one that can say with 
* Orat. 28 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  S. Gregory, then Bishop of C P. I seek not yours, but you, will readily forego his own Interest for the Welfare and Prosperity of his Flock: And since our ejected Bishops, who are (I am fully persuaded) very worthy and good Men, and real Lovers of their People, have never by any public signification of their Will, laid claim to the Obedience of their People, and do not now exercise their Episcopal Power as before; in reason we ought to presume that they give their Consent that their Successors should be acknowledged. But, 2dly. let it be supposed, that the outed Governor does expressly assure his Inferiors, that he does not give his Consent, but still lays Claim to their Obedience. Suppose the conquered, the banished, the imprisoned, or the captive Bishop should charge his People expressly upon their Oath never to accept of any other Bishop as long as by the common Course of Nature he himself may be supposed to be living, or till they be assured he is dead: Let this I say be supposed, (and easy it is to be supposed,) What must be done in such Cases? Is the Church perjured if she accepts of another? Will our Adversaries say that she is? A hard Saying! Who can bear it? This Presumption of the ejected Governor's Consent is (I know) what is commonly alleged by some very learned and otherwise judicious Men, as the true and the only foundation of Acquiescence when the lawful Governor is unjustly Deposed by a Power incompetent: But that that is not the true and the only foundation, these Difficulties which I have alleged do (me thinks) abundantly demonstrate. Other Men I must leave to their own ways of Thinking. For my part, I cannot imagine, that the Welfare and Prosperity of Mankind does depend upon so ticklish and uncertain a Point as that of an ejected Governor's Consent: That, if he refuses to give his Consent, all the Church or the Nation must be made a Sacrifice to him. It is easy to discover, upon how false a Principle that Notion is built. It is grounded on this, That the Oath that is taken to the Governor, is taken only for his sake; when if the true End and Design of Government were duly and impartially considered, it would be found (as above I observed) that the Oath that is taken to the Governor, is taken not only for his Good, but chiefly for the Good of the Public; and that any Oath taken to a Governor that is notoriously and in a high degree repugnant to the Good and Prosperity of the Public, so as to be necessarily productive of intolerable Evils, is in its own Nature void; because by the Public it was never designed that in such a Case it should oblige.  
By the Author of a Treatise entitled; Unity of Priesthood necessary to the Unity of Communion, there are two Examples produced, to show how observant the Ancients were of their Oath of Canonical Obedience; which the Author calls eminent Instances, and proposes 'em to the Consideration of the Bishops of our Church, and wishes they would seriously apply 'em. The first is that of Ivo Bishop of Chartres in France, who flourished about 600 years ago. He being one of the Suffragans of the Archbishop of Sens, was desired by the Bishop of Lions, who was likewise the Pope's Legate, to assist him at the Consecration of the Bishop of Nivers: But the Bishop of Nivers being a Suffragan to the said Archbishop of Sens; and that Archbishop having 
* In those days the Pope's power of Ordaining Bishops in another District, without the Consent of the Metropolitan, was not owned by the Western Church.  never given his Consent that the Bishop of Lions should Ordain a Bishop of his District, Ivo refuses to assist at the Consecration: And this is the reason he gives for it; Because if he should engage in such an undertaking, he should be unfaithful to his own Metropolitan, and betray the Privileges allowed that Church by the Canons as a Metropolitical Church, which by Oath he was obliged to maintain: Reus fieret violatae sponsionis quam Sedi Metropolitanae fecerat. If the Archbishop of York had pretended to Constitute a Bishop of the Province of Canterbury, without the Consent of the Archbishop of Canterbury, and a Suffragan of the Province of Canterbury had assisted in that Ordination, our Bishops would then have been able to apply this eminent Instance. But as the Case stands, they know not, I believe, how to do it: And the Author is desired, that he himself, if he can, would be pleased to apply it. The other Instance is that of the Bishops of our own Country in the Reign of William II. There arising a great Difference between the King and Anselm Archbishop of Canterbury about acknowledging the Pope, Whether the Archbishop could lawfully do it without the King's Consent? The Matter was referred to the Parliament, and the Bishops being by the King required to deprive the Archbishop, they answered, saith Eadmerus, 
(a) Dolemus quod animo tuo, Domine, satisfacere non valemus. Primas est non modo istius regni, sed & Scotiae, & Hiberniae, necnon adjacentium Insularum, nosque Suffraganei ejus, u●de patet nos rationabiliter eum judicare vel damnare nullatenus posse, etiamsi aliqu● culpa in eo, quae modo non valet, possit ostendi. P. 30.  That that they could not do, because he was their Metropolitan. 'Tis hard to conjecture what our Author intended by proposing this Example as worthy Consideration: unless it be that an Archbishop of Canterbury should be now above all Deprivation. He contends in his Treatise, that a Bishop ought not to be Deprived, but by Bishops; and hereby producing this Example (if he means anything at all) he intimates, That an Archbishop cannot be Deprived by the Bishops his Suffragans, because of their Oath of Obedience. But whatever was our Author's meaning: certain it is, that it was not because of the Oath of Obedience that the Bishops refused to Deprive Anselm, as the King would have had 'em; but because they had at 
(b) They had before promised the King to Deprive Anselm; but, I know not how, on a sudden they took up that Opinion, which before was never heard of amongst the Bishops of England: Protinus intellexerunt (saith Eadmerus, who was there present) quod prius non animadver●erunt, nec ipsum advertere posse putaverunt; viz. Archiepiscopum Cant. à nullo hominum, nisi à solo Papâ, judicari posse vel damnari, nec ab aliquo cogi pro quâvis calumniâ cuiquam, eo excepto, contra suum Velle respondere. P. 29.  that time an Opinion amongst 'em, that a Primate or Metropolitan could be judged and deprived by no one but the Pope. So far were they from thinking themselves obliged by their Oath not to Deprive him, that it's very 
(c) Ai● Rex, Quid igitur restat? Si eum judicare non potestis, nun sakem omnis obedientiae fidem ac fraternae societatis amicitiam ei denegare potestis? Hoc quidem, inquiunt, quoniam jubes, facere possumus. Properate igitur & quod dicitis citiùs facite, ut cum viderit se à cunctis despectum ac desolatum verecundetur & ingemiscat se Urbanum, me Domino suo contempto, secutum. Et quo ista securius faciatis, En ego primiùm in imperio meo penitùs ei omnem securitatem, & siduciam mei tollo, ac deinceps in illo vel de illo nedlâ in causâ confidere, vel cum pro Archiepiscopo aut Patre spirituali tenere volo.— Soci●tis sibi Abbatibus (adds E●dmerus) Episcopi retulerunt Patri quod dixerat Rex, suam, pro voto illius, abnegationem ingerentes.— Cum propterea (answers the Archbishop) quoth me ad B. Petri Principis Apostolorum subjectionem ac fidelitatem tenco, mihi omnem subjectionem, fidem, & amicitiam, quam Primati vestro & Patri spirituali debetis, abnegatis, non rectè proceditis.  notorious, that, tho' he was not Deprived, yet they threw off all Obedience, and renounced their Subjection to him.  
§. 9 We are next to consider that Objection which is made by the learned Vindicator, That a Bishop put into the place of another, deposed by the Lay-power, is in reality no Bishop. If this is true, than it must be granted, that we cannot be obliged for the sake of Union and Peace, to adhere to the present Possessor. This indeed is the Difference between our Civil and our Ecclesiastical Governors. The former are purely Governors, and nothing more is required in them but to be capable of Governing; The latter are not only Governors, but are likewise the Administrators of Sacraments, and the sole Ordainers of the Clergy. It is therefore necessary, not only that the Ecclesiastical Governor should be duly qualified for Government, but that he should be likewise endued by God Almighty with the Power of Ordaining, and of administering the holy Sacraments. Thus much must be granted: Let us now see what Argument the Vindicator can produce to degrade our present Possessors, and to prove 'em no Bishops. It is nothing but a Saying of S. Cyprian that is nothing at all to his Purpose. The Saying is this: That a second Bishop is no Bishop. 'Tis strange methinks, that so great and so worthy a Man, should pretend to raise so great and so extraordinary a Structure upon so weak a Foundation. The Occasion of the Saying was this: Novatian, a private Presbyter, had raised a Schism against Cornelius the lawful Bishop of Rome; he had got himself to be ordained Bishop, tho' Cornelius had never been deposed, was still the Possessor, and acknowledged the true and the only Bishop of Rome by all the Churches of the World, both the Western, the Eastern, and the African; and Novatian was by all condemned as a rank and notorious Schismatic. S. Cyprian, who was always very zealous for the Unity of the Church, thus expresses himself, in his Epistle to 
(a) Epist. 55. Quo (gradu Cathedrae Sacerdotalis) occupato de Dei voluntate, atque omnium nostriùm consensione firmato; quisquis jam Episcopus fieri voluerit, foris fiat necesse est; nec habeat Ecclesiasticam Ordinationem qui Ecclesiae non tenet unitatem; quisquis ille fu●rit multum de se licet factans, & sibi plurimùm vindicans; profanus est, alienus est, foris est. Et cum post primum secundus esse non possit; quisquis post unum qui solus esse debeat, factus est; non jam secundus ille, sed nullus est.  Antonianus, concerning him. Cornelius, says he, being possessed of the See according to the Will of God, and confirmed in it by the Consent of us all; whoever would now be a Bishop of that See, must needs be out of the Church; neither can he have any Ecclesiastical Orders, who does not continue in Unity with the Church. Whosoever he is, whatsoever he may boast of himself or pretend to, he is a profane Person, an Alien, and not of the Church: And since there cannot be a second Bishop, where another is already in possession; whosoever is made Bishop after another, who ought to be alone, he is not a second, but none. This is the place out of which the learned Vindicator is pleased to draw his Argument; with how Logical an Inference the judicious Reader may see. 'Tis strange that That excellent Person should be so much blinded with Prejudice, as not to be able to discover how vast a difference there is between the Case of our present Bishops, and that of which S. Cyprian discourses. Had Cornelius been deposed by the Emperor for refusing to acknowledge his Authority, we have all the reason in the world to believe, That his Deprivation would have been looked upon by S. Cyprian as very reasonable and just. But let us still grant, as we first supposed in our Question, That he ought not to have been deprived by the Emperor himself, but by Bishops: Yet if he had been deprived for refusing to acknowledge the Emperor's Authority; or if he had been upon any other account so deprived by the Imperial Authority, as that it would have been impossible for him to exercise his Episcopal Jurisdiction; Is it possible for any wise and unprejudiced Man to imagine, That S. Cyprian would have thought so ill of Novatian and his Adherents, as he did? If an Enemy of the Roman Empire, suppose the King of Persia, should in S. Cyprian's time have taken a Frontier City, and the Bishop of that City should have been deposed by him for refusing to submit to his Authority, Who can believe that That great and wise Man S. Cyprian, would have declared a new Bishop no Bishop, and all his Adherents Schismatical? That a second, that is, a Schismatical Bishop, an Invader of a See already filled and possessed, is no Bishop, is confessed to be S. Cyprian's Doctrine: But that our Bishops are, in the Sense of S. Cyprian, the Invaders of a See already filled and possessed, that they are secundi in his Sense is what we utterly deny. Not a Word, not a Hint in S. Cyprian, from whence such a thing can be inferred. The Vindicator may be pleased to consider, that our present Possessors did not set up themselves in opposition to such as were possessed of their Sees; but before they pretended to be Bishops, their Predecessors were made by the Supreme Civil Power uncapable of Governing, i. e. were Deposed. Again, he ought to consider that our present Possessors were so far from ambitiously invading, like Novatian, the Sees of others, that they were all chose by their respective Churches according to the usual manner; viz. in the same manner that their Predecessors themselves had been. Let us hold up the Picture, which the Vindicator has been pleased to draw, to a true Light; and then we shall the better see what a strange Figure it is. The Vindicator's Enthymeme is this:  
S. Cyprian says, that he is no Bishop, but a Schismatic, who ambitiously invades a See which another is fully possessed of. Therefore,  
S. Cyprian thought, that he is no Bishop, but a Schismatic, who is chosen by the Church, according to the usual manner, into the place of another, whom the Civil Power will not suffer to govern any longer, because he refuses to own its Authority.  
I add, That if a Bishop be a secundus, and no Bishop, who is put into the place of one unjustly deposed by the Civil Authority; than it likewise must follow, that he is a secundus, and no Bishop, who is put into the place of another whom a Synod has unjustly deposed. But this the learned Vindicator will neither himself grant; neither does he, I suppose, believe that S. Cyprian thought so. I say that must follow, if we seriously consider the Matter: For the only good Reason assignable, why in the former Case, the Successor is a secundus, and no Bishop, is this; Because the Predecessor has still a Right to the Bishopric. Now 'tis certain, that the Reason is the same in the latter Case: For a Bishop, whom a Synod has unjustly deprived, has still as much Right to his Bishopric, as a Bishop invalidly deposed by the Civil Authority. For to me 'tis absurd, that any unjust Sentence should take away the Right: tho', the Nature of Government requiring it, it is oftentimes necessary that we should submit to such a Sentence. And this (if I am not mistaken) is the common Sense of Mankind. When a Bishop is unjustly deprived by a Synod, we submit to his Successor; not because we imagine, that the other has no longer a Right, but only for Peace sake. That a Bishop unjustly deprived by a Synod, has still a Right to that Bishopric, as well as a Bishop deposed by an Incompetent Authority, may be clearly demonstrated from this, That after he is deprived, he may be again restored, and his Successor be deposed by Appeal to another Synod: (and yet the ejected Successor is accounted a true Bishop:) Now is that done justly or not? There is no one will say it is not: And yet it is impossible that the Successor should be justly deprived, if the other had no Right.  
To conclude: That a Bishop, who is put into the place of another, unjustly deprived by the Secular Power, is a real and true Bishop, will by and by appear by the Opinion and the Practice of the Ancients in general. Let us now proceed to demonstrate, that, as the submitting to a Bishop, whose Predecessor was unjustly deposed by the Civil Authority, is not in itself a Sin; so the ill Consequences to which it may be liable, are either not so mischievous to the Church, or not so likely to happen as the Evils we endeavour to avoid.  
§. 10. The Evils we endeavour to avoid area a Schism and a Persecution; two Evils as great as can possibly befall the Church. And that those two very great Evils must needs be the certain and the immediate Consequences of a non-submission, is too evident to any Considering Man to need any Proof. If the ill Consequences, to which a submission may be liable, are so great as those two Evils, but not so certain; or if they are so certain, but not so great, it must then be granted that, with respect to Consequences, a Submission is more reasonable than a Non-submission. Now if we consider those evil Consequences which may justly be charged upon the Submission, we shall find that they are so far from being both so great and so certain, that they are neither so great nor so certain, as those two Evils, which, by a Non-submission, must unavoidably be brought upon the Church.  
So far indeed is the Principle, which we maintain, from being necessarily attended with any very ill Consequence, that it is not easy to foresee any Consequence at all that is Evil. As it is for the Good, the Peace, and Prosperity of the Church, that we think ourselves obliged to comply, upon occasion, with the Necessity of Times: So if ever the Civil Power (which to fear in this Reign would be very unjust and unreasonable) should pretend to break in upon the Essentials of the Church, we should then be obliged not to yield to such Impositions. If the evil Day must needs some, (which God forbid!) we will keep it off as long as we can. When it necessarily comes, as now we show our Prudence, so we'll then prove our Fortitude. Not to endeavour to escape from Damascus when a Basket is fairly offered, would be Folly in an Apostle: And to run on to Martyrdom, when it honestly may be avoided, is, according to the Sanctions of the Primitive Christians, a Sin. Should a Person absolutely unqualified be imposed upon us for a Bishop, we are not then to accept him. If a Roman Decius would depose all our Bishops, and not permit us to constitute others in their places, that so he may destroy our Religion, we are not then to regard either what he does or commands. As the Romans, upon the Martyrdom of Fabian, tho', to avoid the Fury of a Persecution, 
* The Roman Clergy for that reason deferred the Election of Cornelius (above 16 Months) as they tell S. Cyprian in a Letter; but as soon as the Emperor had left Rome, they chose Cornelius Bishop.  Propter rerum & temporum difficultates, we might possibly defer the Election; yet as soon as we thought it convenient, we would choose a Cornelius Bishop notwithstanding the Tyrant's Decrees. If an Heretical King Frazamund should command us not to Ordain any Bishops, that so the Catholic Religion may of Course be rooted out, and his Heresy only prevail, we would then no more value that Command than the Catholics heretofore did; but in spite of his Edict, would get as many Bishops ordained as we thought convenient for the Church. But how can our Case be compared with either of these? Here is no forbidding Elections, no deposing all Bishops in general, no imposing unqualified Persons, no destroying of Religion, no advancing of Heresy. The only Question here is, Whether Paul or Apollo's may be followed, when Cephas is in Prison, and is rendered uncapable of acting as an Apostle? Our Adversaries are resolved to have Cephas; If they cannot have him, they will neither have Christ. To us 'tis altogether indifferent, whether Paul, or Apollo's, or Cephas, as long as we have Christ.  
There is only one Inconvenience that I can possibly foresee, which can justly be charged on this Principle which we advance; and that is this: That by a Submission to the present Possessor, the Civil Governor is like to be encouraged to tyrannize over the Church, and to turn out such Bishops as he does not like, whensoever he pleases, tho' never so unjustly. If that be the Objection of our Adversaries; I answer, First, That the same Inconvenience is in all manner of Government: By submitting to a Bishop who is put into the place of another, whom a Synod has unjustly deposed, that Synod may be possibly encouraged to turn out others unjustly, as many as it does not like, tho' never so worthy. Secondly, That here in England it is not the Will of the Prince that can turn out a Bishop. He has all the same Securities that another Subject can have, and he cannot be deprived of his Bishopric without a due Course of Law. If they mean that the King and t●● Parliament may by that be encouraged to Depose our Bishops at ple●●ure, 〈◊〉 Supposition will be wild and extravagant. For who can imagine, that they can ever concur for the Deprivation of a Bishop, but upon a very extraordinary Occasion? There is nothing can be more manifest, than that this Inconvenience is not so likely to happen as those Evils we endeavour to avoid. These are certain and present, That only possible. But, Thirdly, should we grant (what in reason cannot be granted) that it is as likely to happen: yet how great is the Difference? Should the State here, or in other Country's one single absolute Governor, be supposed to be so very dissolute, as to turn out frequently the Bishops of the Church without any just Cause; yet who can look upon that Mischief to be comparable to that of a Schism and a● Persecution? What can the suffering of a few particular Men be, when compared to the Peace and Tranquillity of the whole Church besides? Our Adversaries may be pleased to consider, That it was not for the Bishops that the Church was established; but the Bishops were appointed for the sake of the Church. It is not therefore the Welfare of the Bishops, as the Bishops are these or those Men, much less of some few particular Bishops, but the Welfare of the whole Church in general that is chiefly to be regarded.  
§. 11. And thus, I hope, I have sufficiently made out what I proposed to prove, That the submitting to a Bishop, who is put into the place of another unjustly deposed by the Civil Authority, is neither in itself a Sin, nor liable to ill Consequences so likely to happen as the Evils we endeavour to avoid; or, if so likely to happen, not so great and pernicious to the Church as those are. From whence it necessarily follows, That such a Submission is in itself highly reasonable. Which was the first Proposition we proposed to be demonstrated. I come now to the Second General proposed to be made out, That such a Submission is agreeable to the Practice of the Ancients.  
§. 12. But before I put an end to this Chapter, and proceed to the Proof of this last Proposition, there remains yet one thing more to be considered, and that is the Imputation of Heresy, which the learned Vindicator is pleased to fix upon us. Any Opinion, says the Vindicator, on account of which Men separate from their Ecclesiastical Governors, is Heretical, tho' it be not in its own nature so: And such an Opinion is not Heretical only, when Men designedly separate from others on that very account, because they are not of that Opinion; but also when they venture on such Practices on account of that Opinion, wherein others cannot communicate with 'em; for that very reason, because they cannot join with 'em in that Opinion. Then plainly the differing in such Opinions, makes a difference of Communion unavoidable; and therefore the Opinions themselves, in such a Case as this is, are Signals of different Communions, which will come under the Charge of Heresy. His meaning is, that We, maintaining this Opinion, That the Civil Power has Authority to depose a Bishop for a Political Crime; or, if it has no such Authority, when once it has deposed a Bishop, it is lawful to acknowledge the Successor; and in consequence of that Opinion, submitting now to the present Possessors, are therefore Heretics, because He and his Party cannot join with us in that Practice, as being of the contrary Opinion. Here it comes into my mind, what S. jerom somewhere says, That he that can with Patience hear himself called Heretic, is no good Christian. This is true of those Heresies which were so in the Opinion of the Ancients: But in this Case we dare to be patient. Ego tibi Haereticus tu mihi: That's all the Return we shall make; The Vindicator, in consequence of his Opinion, that the Civil Authority has no power to depose a Bishop; and that if a Bishop is so deposed, his Successor ought to be rejected, tho' otherwise never so worthy, adheres to the Bishops deprived, and disowns those that are put into their places. In this Practice of the Vindicator we cannot join with him; and for that very reason, because we cannot join with him in his Opinion. And what now follows from our Author's Notion of Heresy, but that he himself is a Heretic? It is nothing at all to our Purpose. But for his own sake I shall here take upon me to add, (with a pace maximi ●iri) That this Notion of Heresy is a groundless and a fancyfull Notion. That he may be properly called a Heretic, who separates from the Church, because the Church is not of his Opinion, tho' the Opinion is not at all in its own nature Heretical, I grant: For there is a sort of Heresy which is not sinful on the account of the Opinion maintained, but only because it is a separation from the Church. But this I assert in opposition to what is laid down by the Vindicator, That to all Heresy (as the word is strictly taken to denote a Sin contradistinct to Schism) it is necessary that there be an Opinion maintained; which either the Church condemns, or for which the Person that maintains it, does of himself separate from the Church. If it be not for any Opinion that the Vindicator is divided from the Church, but only for what is done by the Church, he cannot be called, in a strict sense, a Heretic, but only a Schismatic.  
§. 13. But to wave this Dispute, as not at all material, and to suffer the Vindicator, if he pleases, to enjoy his Notion; What now is the Use he would make of it? What is his Design in advancing it? The Use he makes of it is this: He alleges the aforesaid Heresy as a Reason for their Separation. He tells us, That we being guilty of Heresy, they ought by our own Concessions to keep off from our Communion, because we ourselves acknowledge that Heresy is a just cause of Separation. Tho' we should admit, says he, that the Author of the Baroccian Treatise had been successful in all that he has attempted: we may yet justify our adherence to the deprived Bishops, and our Separation from our Adversaries opposite Altars, and justify it too by the Doctrine of their own Author: for even he permits a Separation where Orthodoxy is concerned, and expressly excepts this Case from the Number of those which he pretends to confute. An Heretical Bishop he calls a false Bishop, etc. 'Tis strange that the worthy and learned Vindicator should be so much out in his Logic, as not to see the Inconsistency of what he alleges, and to offer this as a reason for their not communicating with us! If it is their not communicating with us that makes our Opinion Heretical, and us Heretics; how do they refuse to communicate with us for this reason, because we are Heretics? We could not be Heretics according to the Vindicator's own Notion, till they had refused to communicate with us. So dangerous a thing it is, First to do a thing rashly, and then to hunt for a Reason! If this Plea of our Author is good, I would very fain know how any Separation can be proved to be unlawful. Let our Author stand out a little, and dispute with our old Dissenters. He asks a Dissenter, why he separates from the Church? The Dissenter tells him 'tis, because the Church is Heretical. But why Heretical? Because she thinks it lawful to oblige her Members to the use of Ceremonies, and pursuant to that Opinion she actually imposes the use of 'em. In the use of these Ceremonies (says the Dissenter) we cannot join with you; and for that very reason, because we cannot join with you in this Opinion, That the Church has power to impose upon its Members the use of Ceremonies: And because we cannot join with the Church in this Opinion and Practice, upon that very account the Church is Heretical. Thus according to our Author's own Plea: but the Plea would be vain and Illogical.  
§. 14. But this is not all: We are not only Heretics upon that account, but, as the Vindicator contends, we are Heretics likewise (as Heresy signifies an erring) even in Fundamentals. He affirms, that our Opinion is a fundamental Error, because (as he says) it is utterly destructive of the Church, as the Church is a Society distinct from the State. To maintain this Opinion, That for Political Crimes a Bishop may be lawfully Deprived by the Civil Authority: Or this, That supposing he cannot be lawfully so deprived; yet if he is deprived, it is lawful for Peace-sake to submit to his Successor: How that is destructive of the Church, as the Church is a Society, I, for my part, cannot perceive. To me 'tis much more apparent, that to advance this Opinion, That a Bishop cannot be deprived by the Civil Authority for any Crime whatsoever, is destructive of all Civil Government, which, as well as the Ecclesiastical, is of God's Institution. He therefore that advances that Notion, advances a very dangerous Notion. But it is not my Business at present to engage in these Disquisitions. I shall only make bold to ask the Vindicator a few Questions. If he thinks that Opinion, concerning the Power of the Magistrate, a fundamental Heresy, and enough to justify the present Separation, how came it to pass that he did not leave the Communion of those, whom he knew to be the Maintainers of that Opinion, before this time? I will ask him one Question more: If the late Bishops should be again restored, would he then refuse to communicate with those who advance that Opinion? If he would not; than it is certain, that he does not think that enough to justify the present Separation. One more, and then I have done. I desire to know, if our Author knows none of his own Communion, who themselves acknowledge the Power of the Supreme Civil Governor to depose a Bishop for Political Crimes? 'Tis strange if he should be ignorant of what every body knows: And it is to be believed, that the Fathers themselves of his own Communion, at least some of 'em, agree with us in this Opinion, which the Church of England has all along to this time accounted Orthodox, tho' the Vindicator is pleased to declare it a Heresy.  
But enough, and too much, of these Matters. We will leave our much honoured Adversary to invent some other new Notion more consistent, and more useful for his Cause: And will now proceed to inquire how Heretical our Forefathers were in thinking it lawful to adhere to the present Possessor, and in acting accordingly.