THE Oxford-Antiquity EXAMINED: WHEREIN Is briefly shown the Notorious Falsehoods in the Greek Manuscript, said to be Translated by Humphrey Hody, B. D. of Wadham College, Oxon. Which the better to recommend to the World, he Entitles, The unreasonableness of a Separation from the New Bishops, etc.  
LONDON, Printed in the Year MDCXCI.   

THE Oxford-Antiquity EXAMINED.  
THE Author of the Pamphlet, entitled, The unreasonableness of a Separation from the New Bishops, etc. would have the World take notice what a fortuitous Hit, or rather singular Providence it is, that the Greek Manuscript, of which he is the lucky Translator, should lie so long unregarded in the public Library at Oxford, (none hitherto having Brains or Sagacity enough to discern and discover the worth of it,) and at this very Juncture be taken notice of, and so opportunely be brought to Light by this diligent and zealous Searcher into Antiquity. Who very gravely and charitably prays, That it may have that good Effect upon those dissatisfied Persons of the Church of England, which so many Examples and Authorities of Antiquity may give him reason to expect. And could it boast as much Truth-as Antiquity, I know not what it might do.  
But, it seems, there's no name prefixed before it; which I the less wonder at, for the Author pleading for Injustice, and the Succession of Usurping Bishops in the Sees of those who he confesses were unjustly deprived, and being an Assistant (as his Translator thinks) at the Consecration of the Usurper, and therefore so vehemently pressing Obedience to, and Communion with him, thought fit, perhaps, (being ashamed of it) to conceal his Name; to which therefore, being of no great Credit and Authority, it cannot be expected that those unsatisfied Persons of the Church of England (as he calls them) should pay any greater R spect or Veneration, merely because he can write Greek, than to the Confident Pamphletier, because he can translate it.  
But though the Authority is Anonymous, yet the Translator has taken effectual Care to discover his own Name, (which not only the Title Page of his Book, but the Gazette too, must publish to the World,) making a reverend Leg to the New A. B. bespeaking the next Preferment that falls in his Gift, (for though the Author did not, like a , court or write for Preferment, yet I hope his Translator may,) for which he may as readily expect the Archiepiscopal Fiat, as the pert, supercilious Chaplain's Imprimatur: In hopes and prospect of which he will give his Word, or if you please his Oath, not to be guilty of a Separation from the new Bishops.  
But perhaps it will be said, 'tis no matter for the Author's Name, provided that what he speaks is true, and may be made out (as the Translator says it easily can) from approved and authentic Historians.  
Now that my Reader may the better judge of this, I will give him a Taste or too of the Truth of his Book, in a few Observations upon some remarkable Passages in it.  
And for the Authorities which I quote, that the most unlearned Reader may not be at a loss, or puzzled, by sending him to the Greek Historians, as Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret, Zonaras, etc. I shall only refer him to an English Historian, of good Credit and Authority, who has taken the great and worthy Pains to write the Lives of the Fathers, 
Dr. Cave.  making his Collections out of approved and Authentic Historians, referring the curious learned Reader to the Book, Chapter, and Page, out of which, as Occasion offers, I must beg leave to transcribe some remarkable Passages, which may not be unacceptable to the Reader who has not the Book.  
And here first of all I cannot but observe what a learned Historian, and exact Chronologer, the Author of the Greek Manuscript, or his Translator, is, (for I cannot well tell, not having seen the Greek Manuscript, to which the Abstract (pag. 23.) is to be attributed,) who tells his Reader, (pag. 24.) That in the Reign of Constantine the Great, Maximus Bishop of Jerusalem was deposed by the Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine; his Successor was Cyril. Now 'tis notorious that St. Cyril was not made Bishop of Jerusalem, till 12 or 14 Years after the Death of Constantine the Great, who died at Nicomedia, 
a Vide Cave's Lives of the Fathers, vol. 2. p. 94.  Anno Christi 337. And St. Cyril entered upon the See of Jerusalem (not upon the Deposition, but the Death of Maximus, as I shall show by and by,) 
b Ib. p. 343.  Anno Christi 349. according to Saint Jerom; Anno 351. according to Baronius' Computation.  
And 
c Who is mentioned by Name, p. 8. which I desire the Reader to take notice of, lest the Translator, to excuse the Inconsistency in the Abstract, should pretend that 'twas another Bishop of Caesarea.  Acacius, Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine, (who he says deposed Maximus,) succeeded Eusebius (whose Scholar he was) in that See, 
e Cave 's Lives, Vol. 2. p. 28.  Anno 340. which was three years after the Death of Constantine the Great. So that what the Greek Author, or his Translator, affirms in the Abstract before mentioned, I know not whether I may call a Horrid Blunder, or an Impudent and notorious Lye.  
But let us look into the Body of the Manuscript, and see what Prints and Footsteps of Truth we can find and trace out there.  
And first of all, though he gins with an Account of St. Chrysostom, I shall rather choose to examine what he says (p. 9) is delivered in the Life of the Great Athanasius, who was before St. Chrysostom. He tells us, (p. 8.) That Athanasius being condemned and deposed by the Synod at Tyre, fled to Maximus at Jerusalem, who thereupon, he says, called a Private Synod, and repealed what was done by the Synod of Tyre against Athanasius, and restored him to his See; which is very false, as to matter of Fact: For Athanasius being condemned and deposed by the Synod at Tyre, (where 
f Ibid. p. 100  Maximus himself was prevailed with to subscribe the Depostion, and therefore 'twas unlikely that Athanasius would fly to him,)" finding the Malice of his Enemies inflexible, (
h Ibid. p. 89.  to use the words of Dr. Cave, who takes his Account from 
i Ath. Apol. 11. p 568.  Athanasius himself▪) upon his Retreat from Tyre, made his Address at Court, where he met the Emperor on Horseback entering into Constantinople, where after several unsuccessful Addresses he took the Confidence freely to tell him, 
k p. 90.  That he desired no more than that he would not suffer him to be ruined by Malice and Violence, that his Cause might ' be debated in a lawful and impartial Synod, at least that his Judges at Tyre might be brought Face to Face, and he have the Liberty to exhibit his Complaints against them: Which the Emperor looking upon as a piece of Common Justice, dispatched away a Letter to the Synod at Jerusalem, (whither he had 
l Ibid. p. 89. S. 9  adjourned the Synod at Tyre,) commanding those of them that had acted in the Council of Tyre to appear before him, and give an Account of their Proceed therein against Athanasius. Who upon a new 
m Ib. p. 90.  Accusation by Eusebius, and others, (who came to Constantinople,) touching the Corn-Fleet, (which nearly concerned the Imperial Rights, of which the Emperor was jealous, as Princes usualy are, and therefore apt to believe the Story,) was by the Emperor's Order banished to Triers: From whence he returned after the Death of Constantine, by the younger Constantine's 
n Ib. p. 96. & 97.  Order, and was restored and joyfully received at Alexandria, Anno 337. But in a little time, his Enemies making an Interest against him with 
p p. 98.  Constantius, to whose share the Eastern part of the Empire fell, a Synod was held at 
r p. 100  Antioch, (where Maximus, Bishop of Jerusalem, repent of what he had done at Tyre, refused to appear,) where they revived old matters against him, and 
s p. 102.  deposed him, and put Gregory in his Room; upon which Athanasius fled to 
t p. 103, 104.  Rome, where Julius, Bishop there, convened a Synod, summoning the Bishops in the Synod at Antioch, that acted against Athanasius to appear as Plaintiffs against him, who not appearing, the Synod absolved him. After that a Council was held by the Imperial Order (Constantius consenting to the Motion and Request of his Brother Constans,) at 
u p. 109.  Sardica, Anno 347. where Athanasius was absolved and 
w p. 115. Sect. 8.  restored, and sent to Alexandria with Honour by 
x p. 121, 123, 124.  Constantius. In his Journey thither he made a Visit to 
y p. 123. Sect. 6.  Maximus, Bishop of Jerusalem, who assembled a Synod of Neighbour Bishops, and they unanimously received him to Communion, and wrote in his Behalf to the Bishops of Egypt. But 'tis absurd and ridiculous to suppose what our Greek Author affirms, that they, being only a private Synod or Convention, would undertake or presume to repeal what was done by the Synod of Tyre against Athanasius, or judicially restore him to his See; which indeed was needless, it being already done by the Council of Sardica.  
And as untrue it is what he affirms (p. 8.) touching St. Cyril; who was promoted to the See of Jerusalem, not upon the Deposition, but the Death of Maximus, if we will believe 
z p. 342.  St. Jerom and Theodoret. Moreover, it is not likely that St. Cyril would suppsant Maximus, who was his Spiritual Father, from whom he received his 
* p. 341.  Ordination of Presbyter, exercising the Office of Catechist under him. And much more improbable is it that he would renounce it, in Compliance with Acacius and the Arian Party, of which our Greek Author says, (p. 9) St. Cyril was the chief; but afterwards becoming a Convert to the Homoousian (or Orthodox Faith) he was willingly received and allowed as Patriarch by the Church. Which charge against him (to use Dr. Cave's Words) is certainly built upon Ignorance or Mistake. 
p. 342.  For, as the Doctor says, were there nothing else, 'tis enough that he is vindicated by the Deposition of those, who were as capable to know the true State of Things, as St. Jerom, or any of the rest. Theodoret speaking of his entering upon the See of Jerusalem, says, He was a most stout and vigorous Defender of the Apostolic Doctrine; and the Fathers of the great Council at Constantinople, in their Synodical Letter to Pope Damasus, Style him the most Reverend, and must Religious Bishop Cyril, and assure us that he had been Rightly and Canonically Ordained by the Bishops of that Province, and had in several places suffered many very hard Things from the Arian Party. Than which, says he, what could have been spoken more plain and pertinent in his Justification? One such authentic and unquestionable Testimony, given by so many, and such venerable Persons, all Catholic Bishops, who lived at the same time, and could not be Ignorant of his Affairs, who had then his Company with them, and his Cause before them, weighs more with me, says the Doctor, (and truly so it does with me too,) than an hundred Reports (like our Greek Author's) taken up at second Hand, and at a Peradventure by Persons at a distance, who neither accounted it their Interest, nor made it their Business nicely to inquire into Things, whether they were true or false.  
In the next place, let us examine what our Greek Author says touching St. Chrysostom, and the Anti-Bishops, which were most unjustly ●et up in his room.  
St. Chrysostom, the Metropolitan Bishop of the Imperial See of Constantinople, he confesses (p. 2.) was unjustly deposed, and thrust out of the City: And after him, he says, there was Consecrated Arsacius, who, he says, held the Patriarchate 14 Months (
‡ Ibid. p. 517.  16 Months and some odd Days, says Socrates) and, as cannot but be supposed, Ordained Presbyters, Bishops, and Deacons; none of whom were rejected by the Church. After his Death, he says, the blessed Atticus was Consecrated. Chrysostom being yet alive and in Exile. He raised a Persecution against those that adhered to Chrysostom, etc. And then sums up the Succession after the deposing St. Chrysostom, which he intimates was generally approved by the Church, p. 4. See now, says he, the Succession. They that deposed Chrysostom, consecrated Arsacius; the same, together with Arsacius, 
‡ How could Arsacius consecrate Atticus and Sifinnius, unless by the Necromantic Art, (in which perhaps our Greek Author was skilled) he was raised from the dead. Which Absurdity the Translator being sensible of, endeavours to help it by a forced and false Interpretation of the Greek Words, which he recites in the Margin, (pag. 4.) whereas the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot possibly signify (as the Translator would have it, and that contrary to his own Version in the body of his Book,) those consecrated by Arsacius, etc.  consecrated Atticus; Arsacius and Atticus, Sisinnius; and Sisinnius Proclus, who, he says, were received into Communion by St. Cyril. Whereas St. Cyril was dead 12 Years before the Consecration of St. Chrysostom, who was consecrated and enthroned at Autioch, 
* Ibid. p 464.  Anno Christi 398. and St. Cyril died 
‡ p. 356.  Anno 386. Another Blunder, or rather Falsehood, of our accurate historians.  
But to let that pass; that which I would observe is what our Author does insinuate; viz. the peaceable and ready Compliance and Communion of the Church with, and acquiescence and satisfaction in those usurping Bishops, who succeeded the deposed Chrysostom. The Truth of which I shall particularly examine by and by. In the mean time I must beg leave to remark, that though the Translator in his Preface (or some Body else for him, if 'tis a third Person under the Characters of▪ R. B. at the End of it) does affirm, with Forehead enough, in Compliance with his Greek Author, That in the Cases of unjust Deprivation and uncanonical Succession a Separation is without Example in Ecclesiastical Story; yet he allows of the Exception of St. Chrysostom 's Case. He might have added, and that justly, the Case of St. Athanasius, if he had pleased, the Bishops, and Clergy, and People of the Metropolitical See of Alexandria generally separating from, and refusing Communion with his intruding Successors; and resolutely owning and acknowledging Athanasius to be their only lawful Bishop, (which yet was canonicallly though unjustly deposed,) notwithstanding the Threaten and furious Persecutions which they underwent for their constant Adherence to him. And if he was still their lawful Bishop, then on supposition that an orthodox Bishop had been placed in his Chair, (the Greek Author's Hypothesis, and the great Argument of his Book,) it could no more have altered the Case, or justified Communion with the Usurper, than the setting up an Heretical Bishop, because both the one and the other were to be considered, not as orthodox or heretical, but anti-bishops, and schismatically set up against him; but he only allows of the Exception of St. Chrysostom 's Case, and we are beholden to him for that, though indeed I do not well see how he could avoid it; for if he had not made the Exception himself, there are enough that would have been ready to have made it for him, whom he thought necessary to prevent, being perhaps put to the blush by his celebrated Greek Author's bold Assertion, whom every common Reader of Ecclesiastical History could contradict and give the Lie to. But then he minces the matter, and shuffles it off, by telling his Reader, that the Separation was only in the Western Churches, and amongst the Rabble at Constantinople, who, he says, were so enraged, that they not only forsaken but set fire to the Church; so Chrysostom's Adversaries, indeed without any Scruple, reported, 
Ibid. p. 501.  charging it upon his Party, as the Effect of an insatiable Revenge, while some more calmly considering the unaccountable Rise, (breaking out under the Pulpit,) the strange Progress and Manner of the Conflagration, conceived it sent from Heaven, to punish the Enormities of that Time, and the unjust Banishment of so useful and excellent a Pastor, and so entirely beloved by his People. But he tells ye, that 'twas otherwise amongst the Easiern Bishops, who, he says, though they would not be accessary to that unjust Deprivation, however were not so far transported as to make a Schism in the Church. But that Western Separation or renouncing Communion (which he represents by the extenuating, softening Name of being only as it were a breaking off a Correspondence) he tells ye was contrary to the Spirit of St. Chrysostom; who, he says, when he saw he must be deposed, advised and charged the Bishops his Friends, more than once, That as they loved Christ, none of them should leave his Church upon his account, That they must keep Communion with his Deposers, and not rend and divide the Church; and enjoined some devout Women that attended there, That as they hoped to obtain Mercy from God, they should pay the same Service and  to his Successor by a fair Election, that they had done to himself; for the Church could not be without a Bishop.  
And here to kill two Birds with one Stone, I will at once answer both the Prefacer and his Author, by representing Matter of Fact from undoubted and undeniable Testimony.  
The Deprivation of that great and good Man, St. Chrysostom, was grievously resented by the generality of Christians, both Clergy and Laity, who to express their Abhorrence of the Proceeding against him, refused to own or communicate with Arsacius, his usurping and intruding Successor, declaring that Chrysostom was still their lawful Bishop, and uncanonically deposed and thrust out of his See: For though the Proceed against him at Chalcedon, in the Synod at the Oak by Theophilus, Bishop of Alexandria, 
Ibid. p. 482, & 487.  and the rest of his Gang, (though what was done was highly unjust,) might carry a fair and plausible Show and Appearance of a Deposition, (from which he was absolved by a Synod of Bishops, above 60 in number, who met at Constantinople by the Emperor's Order, and took the Proceed of the former Synod under a Review, reversed the Acts of it, and entirely restored Chrysostom to his See;) yet his Deposition, or Deprivation afterwards by a 
* An impracticable and unpresidented Thing, which the Eastern and Western Churches highly blamed and condemned the Emperor for who did it merely to gratify the Importunities of Malice and Revenge.  Warrant from the Emperor (which might truly he called a State Deprivation, and so has some Affinity with the Case of our deprived English Bishops) was altogether uncanonical, and consequently unjust and unlawful. And so it was generally esteemed to be; for when 
† p. 502.  Arsacius was clapped into the Chair a Week after Chrysostom's Departurs into Banishment. (the See of Constantinople being made vacant, according to their Notion of Vacancy,) Chrysostom's Friends and followers (which were not a few, both of the Clergy and Laity) not 〈…〉 behold an Usurper in his Throne, separated from him, and rejected all Communion with him, keeping their Religious Assemblies in several out parts of the City; and from their constant. Adherence to John their Bishop, were by an appropriate Title called Joannites. It vexed old Arsacius, says the Historian, 
Ibid.  to be thus slighted, and to find so considerable a part of the People turn their backs upon him (the Churches being in a manner empty, and the Fields and private Meetings, where they paid their Devotions, and assembled for Religious Exercises, crowded with Chrysostom's Friends) of which he complained to the Emperor, who presently published severe Edicts, commanding all Masters to restrain their Servants from going to those Conventicles, under certain Penalties, 
Ibid.  which were likewise to be inflicted on all Citizens that were found tardy herein; i. e. that did frequent those Conventicles, and refuse Communion with Arsacius. And that my Reader may not think that 'twas only the Lasty, or the Rabble at Constantinople (to use the Words of the Prefacer) that separated from, and refused Communion with this New Bishop of Constantinople; I will recte an impartial Edict (procured not doubt by Arsacius and his Party) which was ordered to be transmitted to the Governors of Provinces to suppress those unlawful Conventicles, (as they called them) viz. Whosoever does not communicate with Theophilus, 
Ibid. p. 503.  Arsacius, and Porphyrius, let him be deposed from his Bishopric; and withal let him forfeit whatever Estate he has either in Money or Land. Which, says the Historian, being particularly restrained to Bishops, was soon after followed with another of a more general Extent: viz. Whosoever shall conceal a Bishop or a Clergy man, or so much as entertain in his House any one that communicates with Chrysostom, let his House be forfeited, and exposed to sale. Which Laws, says the Historian, wanted a quick and sharp Execution: Of which he gives many lamentable Instances. Notwithstanding which severity the Bishops and Clergy, and amongst the rest Innocent Bishop of Rome, 
Ibid 〈◊〉 506, 507.  and most of the Western Bishops, as well as the People, held Communion with Chrysostom, and protested against Arsacius, and all Communion with him.  
Nor did the Separation end with Arsacius, 
Ibid. p. 517.  who died Anno 405 but continued as high and violent against his Successor Atticus▪ a protest Enemy to Chrysostom, having been one of his prime Accusers in the Synod at the Oak yea, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Paladius styles him, the Man that had contrived and laid the Plot and Design against him. Which perhaps, says the Historian, was one of the best Qualifications that recommended him to his place; Which, says he, he was no sooner possessed of, 
Ibid.  but he endeavoured to reduce the Joannites to a Compliance with him. But finding that not only the Bishops, but the People generally stood at a distance from him, he fled to the usual Refuge in such Cases, the Secular Arm, and knowing that if the Bishops were once brought in the People would follow of course, he first pronounced the following Edict: If any Bishop do not communicate with Theophilus, Porphyry, and Atticus, 
Ibid p. 518.  let him be deposed from his See, and deprived of all his Estate. And to strike a Terror in all sorts of Persons, says the same Author, and that the Laity might not think themselves exempted, another Edict was published, commanding that Persons of Place and Dignity, should forfeit their Honours and Offices, Commanders and Soldiers be cashiered, Tradesmen and common People fined in considerable Sums, and banished. To prevent the severity of these Laws, 
Ibid.  some that were Rich complied to save their Estates, others that were Poor, or that saw not far into the state of Things, were by large Promises drawn into Communion with him. But the far greatest part stood off, and preferred the Goodness of their Cause before Riches or Honour, Kindred or Country, and chose rather to fly to the Mountains, or to hid themselves in the remotest Monasteries, or to betake themselves into Foreign Parts; and those that did stay were forced to assemble in the Fields, and to offer up their Devotions under the open Canopy of Heaven. Nor was it only the Western Bishops, (as the Prefacer falslely affirms,) but the Eastern Bishops too generally refused Communion with the usurping Bishops at Constantinople, and held Communion with Chrysostom, whom they esteemed the only lawful Bishop of that See.  
And for this I will likewise refer my Reader to the aforesaid Historian, who takes this Account from Palladius, c. 18. p. 194.  
Nor, says he, was it thus at Constantinople, but almost in all other places of the East, 
Ib. p. 518.  where several Bishops were banished into the most barbarous Countries, and kept in common Gaols; of whom he gives a large Catalogue, with an Account of their barbarous Usage, in that and the following pages, which I desire my Reader to peruse at his leisure.  
But this Separation, says the Prefacer, was contrary to the Spirit of St. Chrysostom, which he infers from his Advice to the Bishops, his Friends, That none of them should leave his Church upon his Account, but they must keep Communion with his Deposers, and his charge to the devout Women, That they should pay the same Service and good will to his Successor, that they had done to himself.  
'Tis true that good Man did thus advise his Friends, and that out of a tender▪ regard to them, seeing a fierce and dreadful storm of Persecution arising, which he was loath they should for his sake be exposed to. Thus our blessed Saviour passionately advised and charged the devout Women that followed him, Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for me— But he did not slight or disregard their Tears, but put them into his Bottle, accepting and rewarding them as grateful Sacrifice, a Sweet-smelling Savour. And though St. Chrysostom beforehand advised against, yet he did not afterwards dislike, or quarrel with those Sufferings, which his Friends underwent for his sake, nor chide or reprehend them for their Separation from, or renouncing Communion with his usurping Successors and their Brethren, (whom Dr. Cave, or his Author, Styles the Schismatical Bishops at Constantinople, presuming that they are the Schismatics which make the Schism, 
Ib. p. 515.  and therein acquitting the Joannite Separatists from that Charge,) which was the Cause, the Source and Spring of all their Troubles and Afflictions.  
And for this I will refer my Reader to the aforesaid Historian, who giving an Account of Letters which St. Chrysostom wrote to his Friends in his Banishment, says, But above all others he thought it necessary for him to write to the Bishops and Clergy, that for his sake were in Prison at Chalcedon, whom he commends for their undaunted Behaviour under Suff rings, beseeching them still to maintain a Greatness and Presence of Mind suitable to the Miseries they endured; and in the midst of all to concern themselves for the Good of the Church, assuring them that though their Care and Study herein might want success, it should not want its Reward at the hands of God. To the same Effect says he, he wrote a more general Epistle to all the Bishops, 
Ibid.  Presbyters and Deacons that were imprisoned upon this Account, that their Sufferings had made them renowned and eminent through the whole World; which should not be in vain, that if their Sufferings were so great, what would be their Reward? That they should rejoice and be glad, and quit themselves like Men, and remember how many their exemplary Courage and Constancy had armed with Patience, how many that were wavering it had confirmed, and revived their drooping Spirits, 
Ib. p. 516  the importance of it reaching beyond those who had the happiness to behold it; and that they should sustain them by a continual Reflection upon that Apostolical Truth, That the Sufferings of this present time, are not worthy to be compared with the Glory which shall be revealed in us.  
Thus wrote St. Chrysostom to the suffering Bishops and Clergy, who refused to comply with the Imperial Edicts about Communion with Arsacius, Atticus, etc.  
Which is a demonstration that their Separation (which was the cause of all their Sufferings) was not so contrary to the Spirit of St. Chrysostom. If it had, instead of applauding and commending their Courage and undaunted Behaviour under Sufferings, which he tells them had made them renowned and eminent through the World, which should not be in vain, beseeching them still to maintain a Greatness and Presence of Mind, suitable to the Miseries they endured; instead of this, I say, he would have blamed and reproved them, as obstinate, wilful Fools, that were fond of Trouble, and did needlessly run themselves into the Fire, as Evil Doers, and therefore inglorious Sufferers, perverse, stubborn, unsatisfied Persons, and Schismatical Violators of the Peace of the Church: So that though St. Chrysostom before his Banishment might advise his Friends against Sufferings for his sake, and a Separation from, and refusing Communion with his usurping Successors, as not prudential; yet 'tis plain, that he did not think or condemn it as sinful.  
But before I dismiss what the Author of the Greek Manuscript says about St. Chrysostom, and his usurping Successors, I must beg leave to observe what a notorious Falsehood he is guilty of in affirming (p. 4.) That Severianus, Bishop of Gabala, and Acacius, Bishop of Berrhea, (or rather Beroea,) who were the chief Authors of all the calamities that befell Chrysostom, being afterwards called in question by Pope Innocent, were neither deposed nor reprehended by him; the Pope leaving their Punishment to God.  
For Answer to this I must refer my Reader to the aforesaid Historian, (for I resolve to write or deliver nothing in this weighty and important Case without good Authority,) who tells us, p. 531. That Pope Innocent giving over all hopes of doing good by fair Means, resolved to proceed to Censures, and to separate both the Emperor and his Lady from all Christian Communion, which he did by a Letter to Arcadius, 
Ib. p. 432.  wherein amongst other things he tells him, That he had abrogated Arsacius his Authority, though dead and gone, (and if so, than the Ordinations of those Presbyters, Bishops, and Deacons, who were ordained by him, notwithstanding what 〈◊〉 Greek Author says, p. 2.) whose Name he forbade to be entered into the holy Diptyches, together with all the Bishops that had communicated with him, of which number were Sererian and Acacius. And for Theophilus, b sides his Deposition, he added his Excommunication, and utter Alienation from the Christian Religion.  
Now let the Reader observe, That Severianus and Acacius stood upon the same Foot with Theophilus, who were jointly St. Chrysostom's Prosecutors and Judges, whom Arcadius in his Answer to Pope Innocent's Letter, calls those wretched Bishops, at whose door, he says, the Gild must lie, 
Ibid.  who under pretence of Ecclesiastical Canons had done it, and taken the blame upon their own Heads, whose unjust Suggestions, he confesses he had assented to. Wherein especially he refers to Acacius, who was one of those that advised him to depose and banish Chrysostom, 
Ib. p. 495.  telling him that it should lie at their door, and that they were ready to answer it with the peril of their Heads. 
Ibid.   
Now that Severian and Acacius being guilty of the same Crimes were under the same Censure with Theophilus, may be strongly presumed from a Passage in Arcadius' Answer to Pope Innocent's Letter, viz. That for Acacius, Severian, Theophilus, and the rest, they should be brought to Account.— Which is a plain In●●●ation, that Pope Innocent had signified to the Emperor in his Letters, that he had pronounced Censures upon them, and desired him to take care that they might not be Bruta Fulmina, but executed cum effectu upon them; which Arcadius seems to promise, telling him, they should be brought to account.  
And thus I think it is sufficiently evident what a faithful, or rather false Historian, and disingenuous Prevaricator, the Author of the Greek Manuscript is; and how ignorantly or maliciously the Translator of it has attempted to impose upon the World, by recommending it as a most excellent, worthy Piece, which would not fail either to silence or satisfy those unsatisfied Persons of the Church of England, as he calls them.  
What has been already said may be enough to satisfy the Reader touching the Worth and the Truth too of this Excellent Piece, from whence he may take his Measures how to judge of the rest. And perhaps it will not be worth while▪ being equally unprofitable and offensive, to rake any farther in this Kennel, or dig any longer in this noisome Dunghill, (which the brisker, quicksighted Academics at Oxford thought not fit heretofore to stir too much, lest it should stink,) being not able to promise ourselves what Virgil did the Stercore Ennis.  
And I cannot but admire, that so learned and ingenious a Man as Dr. Royse is vogued to be, should suffer such a futilous, noisome Piece, such a Farce of Lies and notorious Falsehoods, to pass under his Imprimatur.  
But I forget that he is a young Licenser, and perhaps so good natured to his Friend, like the celebrated Mr. Frasier, as, Right or Wrong, it it be but well designed, to licence without Reading, as the Bankers in Lombardstreet take Money by Content upon the Credit of their Correspondents.  
FINIS.