I Shall follow our Author in his own way, tho he does not always proceed according to order of Time; which is no Argument of his Skill or Exactness, but shews that he took up his Materials as he found them, and placed them without any great Care or Method. And to shew his Judgment, we shall see he has some­times brought Instances which are nothing to his purpose.

He begins with S. Chrysostom, and Pag. 1. in the first place would insinuate that he was Uncanonically Ordained, ha­ving received the Order of Deacon by the hands of Meletius, who was placed by the Arians in the Sea of Eustathius Bishop of Sebastia in Armenia, and was afterwards Translated to Antioch, whilst Eustathius was yet living: and he observes, that Meletius, notwith­standing, was removed to Antioch by the joynt consent of both the Ortho­dox and Arian Bishops, and that both S. Basil and S. Chrysostom were Or­dained Deacons by him.

By all this we are given to under­stand, that Eustathius of Sebastia had great wrong done him, and that Me­letius being besides made Bishop by the Arians could never become a law­ful Bishop.

As to the first point: Eustathius was condemned in two Synods for his ill Tenets and Practices. He was first Socrat. l. 2. c. 43. Deposed by his own Father Eulalius Bishop of Caesarea in Cappodocia, and was afterwards condemned in a Synod at Gangre in Paphlagonia, because af­ter he was Deposed, he had done ma­ny things contrary to the Canons. ‘He had forbidden to Marry, and com­manded to abstain from Meats; he had caused several Men and their [Page 2] Wives to depart from each other; those who would not come to Church, he had persuaded to Communicate in their Houses. He made several Ser­vants leave their Masters upon pre­tences of Piety. He were the Ha­bit of a Philosopher (which was the misdemeanor his Father at first De­posed him for) and had introduced a new kind of distinct Habit for all of his own Sect. He caused Women to be Shorn. He declared against the set Fasts of the Church, and appointed his Followers to Fast on Sundays. He would not so much as admit any Prayers to be made in the Houses of married Persons, and commanded all to avoid, as a thing abominable, the Benediction and Communion of a Priest, who had a Wife, tho he had married her before he entred into Orders, and he both did and taught many other things of like nature.’ Sozomen relates, that besides his being Sozom. l. 4. c. 24. Deposed at Caesarea in Cappodocia, and at Gangre, he was Excommunicated by a Synod at Neocesaria in Pontus, and Deposed by Eusebius Bishop of Constantinople, for his Treachery in some business that he had been en­trusted with, and was Convicted of Perjury in a Synod of Antioch. To all this I need not add, that he was an Arian, and renounced the Nicene Creed, which he had once professed, and that S. Basil often complains of his Basil. Ep. 72, 73, 74. 78, 79. 196. false and perverse dealing, and besides says, that it was reported of him, that he had reordained some of his Pro­selites, tho he could scarce believe it, since no Heretick was ever known to dare to do it. These certainly are Crimes which would justifie his being Deposed, and it could be no fault in Meletius to preside in the See of a Bishop, who for so just Reasons was condemned in several Synods, and had had Anathema pronounced against his Doctrines.

The Second thing viz. Th [...]t Mele­tius was Cons [...]r [...]ted by the Arians, was ind [...]ed a great objection against him, and had like to have been of very [...] [...]onsequence to the Church of An­ti [...]h. For tho Meletius had shewn himself a zealous and learned Assertor of that Orthodox Faith, and was high­ly esteemed by the Orthodox Bishops, who were mightily sat [...]sfied with his Promotion to the See of Antioch: yet there was a Party of Men who still retained a Prejudice against him upon the account of his Consecration; and during his Banishment under Constan­tius, Lucifer Calaritanus coming to Antioch Consecrated Pau [...]inus Bishop of that City, which, when he saw the Orthodox Bishops, and particularly Eu­sebius of Vercelles, disapprove of it, gave the first occasion to Lucifer to begin that Sect, which from him took its denomination. Meletius at his re­turn from Exile, under Julian, finds Socr. l. 3. c. 9. Sozom. l 5. c. 13. the Church of Antioch divided into three Parties; one, that followed Eu­roius the Arian Bishop; another that Communicated with Paulinus; and a third, that adhered still to himself, as their lawful Bishop: the Arians had possessed themselves of all the Churches within the City, but one of the small Churches, which they allowed Pauli­nus, so that he was forced to hold his Assemblies without the Gates. Mele­tius suffered a second Banishment un­der Valens; and when he was restored by Gratian, Paulinus being then An­cient, Socr. l. [...]. c. 5. those who were of Meletius's Communion, endeavoured to have the difference so Composed, that both he and Paulinus might together Preside in that See. But Paulinus refused to agree to it, alledging that Meletius had received his Ordination from Arian Bi­shops. Upon this the People were in a Ferment, and caused Meletius to re­sume the Throne in one of the Churches without the City. This bred great con­tentions [Page 3] between the Parties, but at last they came to this agreement; That whosoever of these two Bishops should die first, the survivour should be the sole Bishop of the See; and there be­ing six Men then in Antioch, who up­on the Death of them, might probably make pretensions to the Succession, they were all sworn to this Agreement. And thus the difference was Composed, only the Luciferians would by no means be prevailed with to Communi­cate with him, but set up separate Congregations. Thus it was according to the account Socrates gives of this Matter; but as Theodorite relates it, Sapores, whom the Emperor had sent to inspect and regulate this Business, seeing the great equity and condescen­sion of Meletius, put him into Posses­sion Theod. l. 5. c. 3. of the Bishoprick: for he makes no mention of any Agreement between him and Paulinus, but only says, that Meletius had the See delivered up to him, and Paulinuus remained Bishop only of that Party, which adhered to him.

This being the case, since Meletius was so eminent a defender of the Or­thodox Faith, as he is confessed by all to have been, and had twice suffered Banishment for it, and during his first Banishment had one irregularly placed in his See, and did afterwards, notwith­standing so great a Provocation, use all the Condescension that could be ex­pected in such a Case; it could be no just Prejudice against him, that he was at first made Bishop by the Arians, or rather by the Semi-Arians, or Aca­cians, who upon occasion would sub­scribe Scer. l. 3. c. 25. the Nicene Creed, and pretended to have no exceptions to the Doctrines contained in it, but were for taking a­way the word [...], as not being found in Scripture, as if the difference had been only in Terms, contriving in the mean time all the ways possible to undermine the Faith by their own Ex­positions. But it does not appear that Meletius ever was an Arian himself; on the contrary the Orthodox Fathers never mention him, but with the great­est commendations; and he seems to have been imposed upon by the Aca­cians and Semi-Arians for a while, who disguised and dissembled their Opi­nions. For when he was called to give an account of his Faith in the presence of Constantius himself, in the Synod Theod. l. 2. c. 31. at Antioch, he declared himself to the entire satisfaction of the Orthodox Bi­shops; and it was no more than they expected from him, and were before well assured of, which made them so desirous to have him advanced to the See of Antioch. And tho Socrates Socr. l. 2. c. 44. says, that Meletius subscribed the Form of Faith which Acacius produced in the Synod of Selencia; yet this seems to be a mistake, which perhaps the parti­ality, which he plainly enough disco­vers for Paulinus, might betray him to; for Meletius's name is not to be found among the Subscriptions to the Creed of Acacius set down in Epi­phanius. Epiphan. Haer. 73.

Now it was determined in this Case, in a Council at Alexandria ^(a) that the worst of Hereticks, the very Prin­cipal and Leading Men among them upon the renouncing their Errors, and reconciling themselves to the Church by Repentance, should be received to Communion, tho not to Officiate as [Page 4] Clergymen; but the less culpable, who had been abused and misled, were likewise to be permitted the Exercise and Administration of their Function. Which is no more than was practised in the Council of Nice it self towards the Arian Bishops, who renounced their Heresie, and signed the Nicene Creed, as S. Hierom urges in his Dia­logue Adversus Luciferianos, where he disputes this point at large. This was Conc. Nic. Can. 8. Socr. l. 1. c. 9. Vales. de Schism. Donatist. all along the Practice of the Church towards the Arians and Novations, and Donatists, and the Meletians, who were so denominated from Me­letius the African Bishop, to admit of their Orders, upon their Reconciling themselves to the Church, and thus it was confirmed and established in the Council of Nice. And to the deter­minations of this Council of Alexan­dria, Lucifer Calaritanus himself had Socr. l. 3. c. 9. Sozom. l. 5. [...]. 13. given his assent by his Deacon, whom he had sent thither for that purpose, and ^(b) all the Western Church ap­proved of this Decree as the only Re­medy against the Arian Heresie. For the true Reason why the Western Bi­shops espoused the Cause of Paulinus against Meletius was not for any Ob­jection they had against his Ordination (which was made an Objection by none but the Luciferians) but because he had been represented in the West as an Heretick, as S. Basil complains, and Basil. Ep. 321. 349. as it appears from S. Hierom's two Epistles to Damasus, wherein he de­sires to know of him, with whom he should Communicate at Antioch: and Paulinus was thought little better of in the East, for receiving to Communion the Associates of Marcellus. But Me­letius [...]d. Epist. 74. & E­piphan. Haer. 77. was received as Patriarch of An­tioch in the General Council of Con­stantinople, and dying there, S. Gregory Nyssen in the presence of that Vene­rable Assembly celebrated his memory with the highest Praises in his Funeral Oration. And upon his death Flavia­nus was by unanimous consent chosen Epist. Sy­nod. C. P. apud Theod. l. 5. c. 9. Socr. l. 5. c. 15. Bishop of Antioch, and the choice confirmed in that General Council, tho Paulinus was yet living, who there­upon nominated Euagrius for his Suc­cessor, but he dying soon after Pauli­nus, no other Bishop was chosen in his room.

But the state of this Controversie, as it lay between the Meletians and Luciferians, is a direct confutation of the whole design of this Authors Trea­tise. For if all Christians are obliged to look no further than to the Bishop in Possession; Paulinus was put into possession of the See of Antioch, whilst Meletius was in Banishment, and he at his return was forced to hold his Assemblies without the City; yet the Meletians never thought this any Rea­son for their compliance, nor did the Adherents of Paulinus ever urge it up­on them: they urged that Meletius had been made Bishop by Arians, and that Plea was over-ruled by the deter­mination of a Council held at Alexan­dria; whereas if our Authors notion had then been good Doctrine, it must soon have decided the Question: for no Man could deny but Paulinus was actual Bishop in the absence of Mele­tius, which was a better pretence than if he had been turned out to make way for him; and so it is impo [...]sible, but this Argument must have been insisted upon, if this had been then an ap­proved Doctrine; and it had been at least a good Argument in the Eastern Church, where our Author would make us believe, it was always the Cu­stom to Communicate with the Bishop for the time being, however he came to be so: and it is incredible, that in [Page 5] so weighty a Controversie, which was so long depending, no Man should once think of the thing, which could alone decide it, when it was so obvi­ous to all capacites, and is supposed to have been received into the constant Practice of the Church in all such cases. St. Chrysostom himself after the Socr. l. 6. c. 3. death of Meletius, for three whole years would not Communicate with ei­ther side, and at last, as all, but So­crates, testifie, was ordained Presbyter by Flavianus, that is, he espoused the cause of the Meletians, and took di­rectly the contrary side to that, which he ought to have taken by these Prin­ciples. For it was a received Maxim, that regularly there could be but one Bishop of one Church at the same time (for if a Bishop appointed his own Suc­cessor, and took him in his life time for an Assistant to him, this was an extraordinary case, and he retained the Authority still to himself, or it was at his own choice, whether he would part with any of it) and if the Bishop in Pos­session were to be the one Bishop, Me­letius had been precluded by Paulinus, when he re [...]urned from Banishment, and Paulinus was afterwards left in Pos­session upon the death of Meletius. 'Tis plain then that this Doctrine was unknown to the whole Church at that time, and particularly to S. Chrysostom, upon whose account this is brought, and whose Case comes now to be con­sidered.

The Author observes that upon the Pag. 2. Deposing of S. Chrysostom, Arsacius was placed in his See, who in fourteen months time must be supposed to O [...] ­dain Bishops, Priests, and Deacons; or if he did not, yet Atticus succeeded him, whilst S. Chrysostom was yet alive and in Exile. Atticus sat as Patriarch twenty years, and yet all his Ordinati­ons were never questioned, but were received by the Church, as if they had been Canonical. Atticus was succeeded by Sisinnius, and he by Nestorius; and both Atticus and Sisinnius were owned as Patriarchs by Celestine Bishop of Rome in an Epistle to N [...]storius; and in the General Council of Ephesus no exceptions were made to the Promo­tions of the Patriarchs of Co [...]stanti­nople, only Nestorius himself was De­posed for Heresie. To enforce all this yet further, the Writer of the Preface cites some passages out of the life of S. Chrysostom written by Palladius, to shew what the Opinion of that Father was in his own Case, and how far he was from insisting upon any Right he had to be acknowledged still, as Pa­triarch, when he was once Deposed: For, says he, S. Chrysostom 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 he enjoyned some de­vout Women that attended there, that as they hoped to obtain Mercy from God, they should pay the same Ser­vice and Good will to his Successor by a fair Election, that they had done to himself: for the Church could not be without a Bishop.

But this notwithstanding, upon exa­minatio [...] we shall find that S. Chryso­stom was clearly of another mind, than he is here represented to be of, and that there is nothing in his Case, which will in the least favour this Authors Do­ctrine. I have already observed, how much contrary S Chrysostom acted to these Principles in the case of Meleti­us, and I shall now make it appear, that he was evidently against them in his own.

The account Palladius gives us is Pal [...]a [...] ­vit. Ch [...] ▪ p. [...]. this: S. Chrysost [...]m before his first Banishment, when he perceived what violent Methods his Adversaries would take; spoke to the forty Bishops, who [Page 6] were met with him: That as they loved Christ none of them would leave his Church upon his account: For, says he, I am n [...]w ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand, in S. Paul's words. I shall undergo many Sufferings, I see, and so de­part this life. And afterwards; To me to live is Christ, and to die is gain, and, am I better than the Pa­triarchs, Ib. p. 68. than the Prophets and A­postles, that I should be immortal? From whence it is plain that he was ve­ry apprehensive that his Enemies had a design upon his life, and that they would not suffer him to live much longer: ^(c) For it was commonly re­ported that he was to be beheaded. At this one of them expressed, how much they were troubled for the Deso­lation and Confusion that would befal the Church, when wicked Men should Usurp the Government of it. Upon which he again exhorts them not to forsake their Churches: For, says he, Preaching did not begin with me, nor Ib. p. 69. will it end with me: did not Moses die? And was not Joshua appointed to succeed him? Did not Samuel die? And was not David anointed? Jere­miah departed this life, but did he not leave Baruch behind? Elijah was taken up into Heaven, but then did not Elisha Prophecy? S. Paul was beheaded, but did he not leave Timothy, Titus, Apollos, and innumerable others be­hind him? When he had said this, [...]ulysius, Bishop of Apamea in Bithy­nia puts him in mind, that if they retained their Churches they must be forced to Communicate, and to Sub­scribe to the Deposing him: to which S. Chrysostom answers, that he would have them hold Communion to pre­vent a Schism in the Church, but by no means to Subscribe; for he was conscious to himself of nothing for which he ought to be Deposed, or thrust out of his See. Just before his second Banishment, he speaks to Olym­pias the Deaconess with some others, saying, I see the things concerning me have an end, I have finished my Course, and probably you will never see my face more: this one thing I desire of you, that none of you omit your accustomed Good-will and at­tendance upon the Church; and who­ever shall be Ordained without his own seeking, and ^(d) against his de­sire, by a general consent, that you would obey him, as you would do me: for the Church cannot be without a Bishop.

It is evident both from the Words themselves, and from the Circumstan­ces in which he spoke them, that S. Chrysostom both times 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 we allow the words their ut­most Latitude, and take them in the greatest extent that they will possibly admit of, they can amount to no more than this, not that they should submit to any Bishop, who should succeed him, whilst he was living; but to one, who should not be desirous or fond of it, but should come in against his own in­clinations, and by an unanimous con­sent; by which we can understand no less, than that he means one, who was not of the Party against him, nor had [Page 7] any hand in thrusting him out; and if such an one were chosen unanimously, who was a friend to his Cause, and lamented the great injustice done him, and who unwillingly and upon necessi­ty only could be prevailed upon to fill the See, and who therefore must have been as willing to have given way to him, as the true Patriarch, if ever he should have returned; if such an one were chosen; (and such an one he must he, if he were chosen by general con­sent: for never any Bishops departure was more grievous to all but the Facti­on that Deposed him, than S. Chryso­stom's was) then, according to this Sense of his words, he advises them not to divide the Church upon his ac­count, but to joyn in Communion with such a Bishop, since this was the only means to preserve the Churches Peace. Which is a conditional Resig­nation, or a Declaration that he would forgoe his own Right upon condition that such a Bishop were chosen as he there mentions. But, if we suppose this to be S. Chrysostom's meaning, the See was disposed of to men, who were very far from being such Bishops as he exhorted them to submit to. For all his Friends endured great hardships under Arsacius, and Atticus had been Pallad. p. 95. Soz. lib. 8. [...] 27. Phot. Bi­bli. Cod. 277. the chief Incendiary against him. And this is the excuse which Photius makes for some Expressions, that seemed to him a little too severe, which S. Chry­sostom used concerning Arsacius in an Epistle to Cyriacus.

And to be convinced that S. Chry­sostom did not design that they should submit to any Bishop, that should be set up, we need only consider that these very Persons, to whom he gave this in charge, never would submit either to Arsacius or Atticus, at least during his Life; but suffered all that they could do to them, rather than they would comply, and S. Chrysostom wrote many Epistles to these very Bishops and Deaconesses, to comfort and support them under the severe afflictions, which they endured upon this account: And when Palladius himself, and so many other Bishops, with the rest of the Clergy suffered so much in S. Chry­sostom's Cause, as is mentioned in his Life, it is past all belief, that neither any of the rest, nor Palladius, who is supposed to be the Author of this ac­count of his Life, and was one of those Bishops to whom S. Chrysostom gave these directions, should call to mind what he had said to them; but the Bi­shops as well as Deaconesses should with one consent act contrary to what S. Chrysostom in his last words required of them, and should either mistake him, or forget what he had said, or should choose to suffer any thing ra­ther than observe his advice, and do what he had told them was their Duty. But as his Friends could not have so little respect for him, or so little care of themselves, as to forget so soon, what it would have been so much for their own ease and safety to remember: so he would not have failed in some one of his Epistles at least to put them in mind of it, and would never have let them suffer so much, contrary to that Duty, which his last words in­culcated to them, taking no care af­terwards to remind them▪ what God and the Church required of them. If he had never heard of their condition, or had never had an opportunity to write to them about it, it is scarce pos­sible they should misunderstand him so, as to run themselves into such need­less, and indeed sinful sufferings; but when he held a Correspondence with them in his Banishment, and wrote so often upon this very Subject, it is incredible that they should suffer for not doing that, which he had exhorted them to do, and that he among all his Consolations should forget that which would alone have given them effectual [Page 8] and present relief, and should omit to tell them, that they suffered when they needed not, and in a Cause, in which they could not suffer with a good Con­science.

But this is not all: S. Chrysostom Chrysost. Epist. 26. 27. does not only omit to tell them, that they needed not, and ought not to suffer, but applauds them for suffer­ing in so good a Cause, and exhorts them to perseverance, and applies those Scriptures to them, which pronounce blessings upon those, who suffer for Righteousness sake: He tells them they ought not to value their lives in Ep. 36. 46. 71. 90. such a Cause, being certain of a re­ward in Heaven. He ^(e) extols the Apostolical Courage and Constancy of the Bishops and Clergy, who were in Prison, and compares them to S. John Baptist, both in their Sufferings and in the justness of their Cause; and repre­sents it, as a more glorious thing to suffer so much, and so long for the Vindication of the Primitive Constitu­tions and Discipline, than it was for him to be beheaded for telling Herod, that it was not lawful for him to have his Brother Philip's Wife: S. John Baptist suffered but once; but he bids them say, we are ready to suffer ten thousand Deaths rather than comply with the Ʋsurper [...]. He exhorts the Ep. 99. Bishop and Clergy of Scythopolis to a­void, as to their own Honour, and the Benefit of the Church they had already done, all those, who had filled the Ep 126. World with Confusions, and had brought such divisions into the Church: and he writes to the Bishop of Jerusa­lem to the same purpose, and almost in the same words. In his Epistle to Cyriacus, ^(f) I have heard, says he, of ^* that vain Man Arsacius, whom the Empress has placed in the Episcopal Throne, that he has afflicted the Brethren, and the Virgins, who would not Communicate with him; and many of them have died in Prison for my sake. For he is a Wolf in Sheeps clothing, and has the Habit of a Bishop, but is an Adulterer; for as a Woman is called an Adulteress, who is married to another Man, whilst her Husband is living, so he is not a Carnal but a Spiritual Adulterer; for he has usurped my See, whilst I am alive. It is doubtful, I confess, whether this Epistle to Cyriacus be genuine; for it is rejected both by Mr. Hales and Mr. Boys in their Notes upon it, and these expressions con­cerning Arsacius, are alledged by Mr. Hales as one reason, why he thinks it cannot be S. Chrysostom's: but Mr. Boys says, he should the rather be inclined to think it genuine, because of these expressions, and he answers all the other Objections against it, re­jecting it himself only upon the ac­count of the Style. I shall only say, [Page 9] that there are so many Accidents, which may make any Authors stile 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 Stile must be the less certain, especially since Pho­tius could not discern but that it was genuine, tho he took notice of this very passage concerning Arsacius and de­fends it. But suppose it not to be genuine, yet it is very ancient, and was written probably by one, who lived in S. Chrysostom's time, and was not un­acquainted with his sense of these things.

S. Chrysostom having put another Bi­shop Ep. 148. in mind of the reward, which he would certainly receive for his sufferings in another World, takes off that Ob­jection, which might be made from the smalness of their number; and tells him, that if they would shew them­selves couragious, they would be too hard for those, who were more in num­ber, and boasted themselves in their wickedness; that God would be their help and assistance, if they would but do their Duty, and that they were in­gaged in a Cause, which concerned all the Churches in the World. But that which yet further shews S. Chrysostom's Ep. 13. ad O [...]mp. mind in this matter is; that, the Bi­shop, whom he had Consecrated and sent to the Gothes, being dead, he takes care to provide another Bishop for them, and is very sollicitous, that one should not be Ordained and sent thither by Arsacius; or Atticus, so that he not only looked upon himself as the only rightful Patriarch, but acted as such in his Banishment.

We see, that S. Chrysostom was very far from advising, or so much as con­niving at a compliance with the Usur­pation of the Bishop, that had posses­sed himself of his See. He com­mended, and encouraged those that would not Communicate with him, he comforted them, with the expecta­tion of Rewards in Heaven, for what­ever they could suffer here in a Cause, which was so pleasing to God, and up­on which depended the good of the whole Christian Church; he called Ar­sacius by name a Wolf in Sheeps clothing, (if the Epistle to Cyriacus be genuine) and took upon himself Episcopal Authority, even in his Exile; he encouraged all every where to stand out against the Usurper, by his Epi­stles, which he sent to the Eastern Bi­shops, and to those of the West; to the Bi­shops, Priests, and Deacons, who were imprisoned, and to persons of both Sexes, and of all Orders and Degrees: for the greatest part of his Epistles are upon this Subject, and yet there is not one word of submission or compli­ance; but the most earnest and passio­nate Exhortations to the contrary, from all the motives which he could use, that concern either this or another life. And there is much more to the same purpose in ^(g) a Discourse which he wrote in his Exile, to remove the scandal some took by reason of the Persecution, the Church then lay under.

The Author of the Preface confes­ses, that the Western Churches did a T [...]eod [...] 5. c. 34. long time refuse Communion with some Bishops, that had conspired a­gainst S. Chrysostom. He should have said, as Theodorite, whom he quotes soon after, does, that they would not hold Communion with the Bishops of Egypt, and of the East, nor with those upon the Bosphorus, and of Thrace, till they had Registered the name of S. Chrysostom among the rest of the Patriarchs deceased. But he says, that in this case the renouncing Communi­on was only, as it were, a breaking off a Correspondence. Suppose it were [Page 10] no more; yet it cannot be shown that it was ever thought lawful for one Pa­triarch to break off Correspondence thus with another, but upon such Rea­so [...]s as would justifie a separation in Bishops from their own Patriach. But it was not b [...]rely a not Corresponding with A [...]sacius and Atticus: for the Western Church not only espoused S. Chrysostom's Cause, but did approve of the proceedings of those who suf­fered for it, and were not backward to declare that they had done well in not Communicating with the new Patri­triarchs; Sozom. l. 8. c. 26. Pallad. p. 214, &c. they denyed that these had any Episcopal Authority, or ought to be owned as Patriarchs during the life of S. Chrysostom.

But most of the Eastern Bishops would not renounce Communion, though they would not be accessary to that unjust Deprivation. This, I con­fess, Theodorit says: and it is no won­der that in the East many, who de­clared for the Justice of S. Chrysostom's Cause, and against the proceedings of of his Enemies, should be wrought upon by Terrors and Punishments; whereas those in the West acted unani­mously, being under no such hard Circumstances to awe them to a com­pliance. And this makes S. Chrysostom in one of his Epistles purposely take off that Objection, from the smalness of their number. But though the Bishops in the East did not so generally refuse to Communicate with the Deposing Bi­shops, as they did in the West, yet that very many did refuse to do it, is evident; for the Prisons were filled with them: and many of these who refused, were Bishops of the chiefest Sees: for the Bishops of Jerusalem, and Thessalonica, and in general the Chrys. Ep. 26, 27. 126. Bishops of all Macedon were of the number, besides many others of lesser Note, or whose Sees are not mentioned.

But Atticus at last began to re­lent, Socr. l 7. c. 25. or was forced to relax his Rigour, and to Register the name of S. Chry­sostom in the Diptycks of the Church, endeavouring by this means to bring over the Joannites, as they were cal­led, who asserted his Cause. And when S. Chrysostom had been so long time dead, and this Right had been done to his memory, it is no wonder, that Atticus and Sisinnius should have the Titles of Patriarchs given them, and that the Council of Ephesus should take no notice of the Injustice, that S. Chrysostom had had done him, when both He, and those that had done it were dead, and their names were read together in the Diptycks; when the Joannites had had this satisfaction given them, and there was no Man now alive, who could pretend any in­jury done him by the Promotion of the present Patriarch, it could not be­come the Wisdom and the Charity of a General Council to revive the me­mory of a thing, which after so long a time could admit of no Remedy, but what might be of worse Consequence, and might increase and prolong the Di­visions, which now were much abated, and soon after ceased.

The Western Churches had long be­fore Theod. l. 5. c. 34. the Council of Ephesus renewed Communion with the Eastern, when once S. Chrysostom's name was written among the names of the other Patri­archs deceased. For they never took any notice of Arsacius at all, and re­jected all the Messages that Atticus sent to get himself acknowledged by them, till he had made this amends to the Memory of S. Chrysostom. But, as Theodorite observes, these Bishops, who were thus injurious to S. Chryso­stom, were otherwise excellent Men, and there was nothing else to be found in them, which might deserve the Churches Censure, and therefore, after the Church had been satisfied, as to this matter, they were mentioned with those Titles, that were due to their [Page 11] Station, and to their Vertues. For the Titles which Celestine gives to Atti­cus Conc. Ephes. Part 1. col. 353. 361. and Sisinnius in his Epistle to Nesto­rius, are only such as suppose, their names to be written in the Diptycks a­mong the other Patriarchs, and that they were assertors of the Catholick Faith: he supposes Atticus at last to have been the Rightful Patriarch, and consequently Sisinnius, who succeeded him by a Canonical Election, to have been so too; and he highly commends both of them for their zeal in main­taining the true Faith, which Nestorius, the next in Succession, had so shameful­ly betrayed. Atticus, after the death of S. Chrysostom and Sisinnius, who succeeded him, were in their times the only Patriarchs of Constantinople, and tho Arsacius and Atticus had not come in regularly, yet it was in the Power of the Church, upon due satisfaction made, for the sake of Peace and Or­der, to pass by such a defect, and dispense with it; and when Atticus had Registred S. Chrysostom's name in the Diptycks as Rightful Patriarch, this was in effect to acknowledge him­self to have been an Usurper, during his life; which was accepted of by the Church as a sufficient Declaration of his Repentance: and, as it has been al­ready shewn, Hereticks themselves up­on their Repentance were to be re­ceived not only to Lay▪Communion, but according to their Order and De­gree in the Church. If our Author could have shewn that Celestine had said as much of Arsacius, as he has done of Atticus and Sisinnius, that had been to his purpose, because S. Chry­sostom survived Arsacius; but it is ac­knowledged, that after the death of S. Chrysostom, Atticus was at last Right­ful Patriarch, and owned by the Western Church for such.

What is added of Maximian and Proclus that they were acknowledged as Rightful Patriarchs by the Church, needs no other Answer, than what has been already given; for if Atticus were Rightful, the rest who succeeded him were such too; if no other excepti­on lay against them, than that, con­cerning what had been done to S. Chry­sostom. But besides, Maximian was Conc. Eph [...]s. Part 3. col. 10 [...]. made Patriarch in the room of Nesto­rius in the General Council of Ephe­sus; and this surely was enough to purge all defects in the Succession of the Patriarchs of Constantinople. For where a General Council does not only approve of, but appoint the Suc­cessor of a Bishop Deposed for Here­sie, it can no longer be pretended, that there remains any defect upon the account of injustice done to a Patri­arch, who had been so long dead; for if the Succession had been interrupted till now from the time that S. Chry­sostom was Deposed, yet this would put it in its due course again. Proclus who is next mentioned, and was next in Suc­cession to Maximian, had been bred up under S. Chrysostom, and could lit­tle suspect that he should ever have been reckoned among his uncanonical Successors: for as Atticus had inserted his name among the other Patriarchs, so Proclus was zealous to make him Socr. l. 7. c. 45. all the further reparation, that could be made, by causing his Body to be re­moved to Constantinople, and there in­terr'd with all the Honours of a Fu­neral solemnity.

If Severianus Bishop of Gabala, Pag. 4. and Acacius Bishop of Berrhea, be­ing afterwards discovered to Pope Innocent, were neither deposed, nor reprehended by him: The reason must be, that that Pope did not assume to himself so much as his Successors have done, but said he would procure a General Council to be called to re­dress the Grievances of the Greck Church upon this account, and at the same time denies all Authority in Ar­sacius, as being an Intruder. Nay, in [Page 12] an ^(h) Epistle written to the Em­perour Arcadius, he Deposed Arsacius after his death, or declared him never to have been Patriarch, and comman­ded his name to be razed out of the Diptycks; and in the same Epistle Ex­communicated Arcadius himself, and the Em [...]ress Eudoxia, and both De­posed, and Anathematized and Excom­municated Theophilus of Alexandria.

I will not suppose that this Epistle Biondell. Pseudo. Isid. p. 562 Georg. Alex. vit. Chrys c. 68 Mich. Glyc. An. Part 4 p. 259. Niceph. l. 13. c. 34. Cedren. p. 332. Conc. Tom. 2. Col. 1310. to Arcadius deserves much Credit, for it is rejected by Blondel, because Georgius Alexandrinus is the first that produces it, from whom Glycas and Nicephorus had it, and before them both Cedrenus made mention of it. And whereas Pope Innocent in this E­pistle, wherein S Chrysostom is men­tioned as already dead, threatens Eu­doxia the Empress with Punishments in this World as well as in the World to come, it is noted in the Margin over against this Epistle in Labbe's Edi­tion of the Councils, that Eudoxia, died before S. Chrysostom, which is a plain intimation that the Epistle is Spu­rious. But I produce this Epistle to observe, that if it could pass for Au­then [...]ick in the several Ages in which these Authors lived, it is in vain to endeavour to make it be believed, that the Practice of the Greek Church was all along such as our Au­thor pretends: for when Men would impose any Spurious writing upon the World, they cannot hope to make it be received for genuine, but by giving it as near a Resemblance to Truth as they can devise, and that commonly they do by copying out some of the Customs of their own time; for what Men see done in one Age, they are the more easily induced to think was done before: but it is too impudent a For­gery to invent a writing, which con­tains things plainly contrary to the Practice both of their own and all foregoing Ages; a M [...]n can never ex­pect to be believed in such a Story, or that any will venture to repeat it after him. So that we must conclude, that this Epistle was agreeable to the Pra­ctice of the Church in Georgius Alex­andrinus's time, who lived in the se­venth Century, and that Glycas in the twelfth, and Nicephorus in the four­teenth saw nothing absurd in it: but as Blondel has observed, that part of it, which concerns the Excommuni­cation of Arcadius and Eudoxia is not mentioned by Cedrenus, which makes him suspect it was foisted in after his time: for all Forgeries as they are designed commonly to serve some turn or other, so they seldom fail to be suited to the abuses of the times in which they are made.

But it is confessed that not only Pope Innocent, but the whole Western Church did refuse Communion with the Deposing Bishops, and it is further observable, that when, after the death of Flavianus Bishop of Anti [...]ch, who had not consented to the Deposing of S. Chrysostom, Porphyrius suceeeded Sozom. l. 8. c. 29. him, who agreed to it, many of Syria broke off Communion with that Church.

Our Author next observes, that P. 5, 6. whereas Dioscorus in the second Coun­cil of Eph [...]sus absolved Eu [...]yches, and Deposed Flavianus, and then mur­thered him, and Consecrated Anatolius in his room: none of those Bishops, who concurred and acted with Dioscorus in the unjust ejectment of Flavianus, and the unlawful Ordination of Ana­tolius [Page 13] in his place, were rejected in the fourth General Council of Chal­cedon, only Eutyches and Dioscorus. that persisted in their Heresie. For that Holy Synod concerned not it self about the Ordinations of uncanonical and illegal Patriarchs, but only re­quired of every one the Profession of the Orthodox Faith.

By this representation of the Case, he would have it believed, that no Ob­jection was made against the Bishops, who concurred with Dioscorus in the second Council of Ephesus, for having concurred with him; but that the Pro­fession of the Orthodox Faith was only required of them, and so they were forthwith received by the Council. Which is so far from being true, that tho they had owned their fault in De­posing Flavianus Patriarch of Con­stantinople and Eusebius Bishop of Dorylaeum, and were as forward as any to make Profession of the true Faith, yet it was moved in the Coun­cil of Chalcedon by the Judges, or Of­ficers sent by the Emperour to inspect and regulate the Proceedings there, that Juvenalis Bishop of Jerusalem, Thalassius Bishop of Caesarea in Cap­padocia, Eusebius Bishop of Ancyra, Eustathius Bishop of Berytus, and Ba­sil Bishop of Seleucia in Isauria, ⁽ⁱ⁾ should be put under the same Cen­sure with Dioscorus Patriarch of Alex­andria, and should according to the Canons be deprived of their See's: which was assented to by the Bishops of the East, who said it was a just ^(k) Sentence; they agreed that it was just to reject those Bishops, whose names I have now recited, and who are the same, that on [...] Author by name sets down as not rejected in the fourth General Council, only he has left out Eusebius Bishop of Ancyra, and in­serted Photius Bishop of Isauria in Epirus, or, as the Publisher has Cor­rected it, Photius Bishop of Tyre. If he means, they were not finally re­jected, he says true, but then he ought not to have concealed, that they were not received in the first Actions of that Council, nor upon what grounds they were at last admitted; but these are such as will not be at all serviceable to his Cause. They took their places in­deed among the rest of the Bishops at the opening of the Council, but so did Dioscorus himself too, tho it was objected against by the Bishop of Rome's Legats, who were over-ruled, it being thought reasonable that they should retain their Places till their Cause was heard; for to displace them before might seem to be a Prejudging them. But upon examination it ap­peared, that the case of these Bishops could deserve nothing but commisera­tion from the Council: some of them, S. Basil of Seleucia by name, had Conc. Chald. Co [...]. 137. 229. made profession of the true Faith in the Synod of Ephesus it self, wherein Dioscorus presided; and at last what they did in concurrence with him, was by compulsion: for they were sur­rounded with armed Soldiers, who of­fered violence to them, and forced them to Subscribe a Blank Paper, which was afterwards filled up; ^(l) as they pleaded for themselves, and as Euse­bius Bishop of ^(m) Dorylaeum like­wise [Page 14] testified. So that when this af­fair came again under debate, the Council was very compassionate to these offending Bishops, in considera­tion of the hard Circumstances, in which the Offence ⁽ⁿ⁾ was committed; and therefore they desired that they might be suffered to receive t [...]e Five Bishop [...] as Members of the Council, and the Emperour being first ac­quainted with their request, by his per­mission they were restored.

What then can we conclude from hence more than that the Authority of a General Council may be sufficient upon so reasonable Motives to restore Bishops, who by the Canons have for­ [...]eited their Sees? But it is a very wrong account of this matter, to say barely, that none of those Bishops were re [...]ected in the fourth General Council of Chalcedon: for they were rejected at first, or else there would have been no debate concerning their Case, when once they would Subscribe the Ortho­dox Faith; but tho they profered to do this, they had like to have lain un­der the same condemnation with Dios­corus, so far as it concerned his being Deposed from his See: and it was upon considerations peculiar to their Case, and which in all equity ought to be admitted of in abatement to the Rigour of the Letter of the Canons, that they were at last accepted: for if there had been no more in their Case than what our Author has thought fit to take no­tice of, they had, as it appears, been absolutely rejected.

But he says, that Anatolius was un­canonically advanced to the See of Con­stantinople, and the Synod concerned not it self about such Matters, re­quiring only of every one the Profes­sion of the Orthodox Faith.

He seems to suppose here, that A­na [...]olius was constituted Patriarch by Dioscorus in the second Council of E­phesus in the room of Flavianus; Liberat. Breviar. c. 12. which cannot be true; for he was not Patriarch till after the death of Flavi­anus, and Flavianus died in Prison after the Synod. If it had been other­wise, Leo Bishop of Rome could not have been uncertain, as he writes to ^(o) Theodosius, he was, whether the Promotion of Anatolius were uncano­nical or no; it being notorious that all must be uncanonical, which was done in prejudice to an Orthodox Patriarch's Right, by an Heretical Bishop in an He­retical Synod: And besides, if he had been made Patriarch in the second Council of Ephesus, he had been De­posed by the Council of Chalcedon in which himself presided: for all the Acts of that Council of Ephesus Euagr. ib. p. 328. are declared void in the General Coun­cil of Chalcedon, excepting only the Ordination of Maximus Bishop of Antioch.

But because this Author says, that that Holy Synod concerned not it self about the Ordinations of uncanonical and illegal Patriarchs. I shall bring a remarkable instance to shew, that that Council did concern it self about uncanonical Ordinations, which may convince us, that if Anatolius had been uncanonically Ordained, it would have been insisted upon: For there was at that time a contest between Bassianus and Stephanus concerning the Bishop­rick of Ephesus; and the Council upon [Page 15] examination finding that the Pretensi­ons of both of them were contrary to Conc. Chal. Act. 11, 12. the Canons, Deposed them both and appointed a third Bishop to be Conse­crated, tho Bassianus had been in Pos­session of that See four years; which shews how little our Author's Princi­ples were thought of in that Council. And to make it yet further manifest, how little this Author knew of the Council of Chalcedon, when he says, that only Eutyches and Dioscorus were rejected there, who persisted in their Heresie: Anatolius expresly declared in the Council, that Dioscorus was not Deposed for Heresie, but because he Euagr. l. 2. cap 18. p. 327. had Excommunicated Leo Bishop of Rome, and had refused to appear, when he was thrice summoned.

The next Instances, which he brings, Pag. 6. are in Reign of the Emperour Ana­statius, who, he says, Deposed three Patriarchs of Constantinople, which when he proceeds to give an account of, he insists upon his Deposing of Eu­phemius and Macedonius only, saying that the great Elias Bishop of Jerusa­lem Pag. 7. imbraced the Communion of all these three Patriarchs, when all were alive together, that is, he embraced the Communion of Euphemius, M [...] ­cedonius, and Timotheus, the two last being preferred to that See contrary to the Canons; but if Timotheus was un­canonically Deposed too, as he said, why did he not inform us how he be­haved himself towards his Successor? tho indeed it is to little purpose to concern our selves what uncanonical Bi­shops did: for they could have no pre­tence to break off Communion from their Successors, who came in by as good a Right, as they had done them­selves.

However he tells us, that when A­s [...]atius had Deposed Euphemius, be­cause he would not embrace the Heresie of the Acephali, and Anathematize the the fourth General Council, and Com­municate with Severus Bishop of An­tioch, and had set up Macedonius, in his room; Euphemius did not depart from the Communion of his unlawful Successor, because he held the Catho­lick Faith; and so likewise that Mace­donius, when he was Deposed for the same Reasons, held Communion with Timotheus, who succeeded him, be­cause he was Orthodox. He says that Elias Bishop of Jerusalem held Com­munion in like manner with all these three Patriarchs, and that when the same Emperour had Deposed and Banished the said Elias, because he would not be brought over to his Heretical Opinions, and constituted John in his place, Elias continued Communion with him, be­cause he proved Orthodox, as did like­wise the two famous Monks Theodosius and Sabas.

I answer, it does not appear, whe­ther Euphemius did Communicate with his two Successors or not; but it is this Authors custom to make his ad­vantage of the silence of Historians, and to conclude that the Deposed Bi­shops did Communica [...]e with their Suc­cessors▪ only because the Historians do not positively say the contrary, whereas no such thing ought to be concluded▪ as I shall afterwards shew. A [...]d it is not p [...]obable that Eup [...]mi [...]s did Com­municate with Macedonius: for Eu­phemius had lately assembled a Synod purposely to confirm the fourth Ge­neral Council, whereas Macedonius Subscribed Zeno's Henoticon, the de­sign of which was to lay aside the Au­thority of the fourth General Council, which was next to the condemning it.

But supposing th [...]t Euphemius did Communicate with both his Successors, as Cyrillus of Scythopolis informs us, Elias did; yet if we consider the ex­traordinary Circumstances of that time, and the peculiar Reasons, that might induce them both to it, this will not prove the general Assertion, which this [Page 16] Author lays down, That not one of those Bishops that were unjustly de­posed, did ever separate himself from the Communion of the Church, upon the account of his being dep [...]sed, provided that he that was uncano­nical [...]y promoted after him, was Or­thodox. But this will only be an Exception to the general Practice, and so will prove the quite contrary, to what he would prove by it.

The Church at that time was mi­serably Sabae Vit. per Cyrill. S [...]ythop. c. 50. Euagr. l. 3. c. 30. over-run with Heresies and Schisms; and the Emperor himself be­ing a zealous Heretick, the Othodox Bishops we [...]e forced to be contented to submit to great Inconveniencies, and not to insist upon their Right and Authority, so they could but secure an Orthodox Succession in their Sees; they saw, it was impossible for them to keep in themselves, and the next thing they desired was to have an Or­thodox Successor, who probably never would have been prevailed with to as­sume the Throne, without the rightful Patriarchs consent, and when he was in it, still owned the former, as him who had the just Title to it: Which might make Euphemius, when he was to be sent into Banishment, desire that Ma­cedonius would undertake for his safe conduct; and when Macedonius, by the Emperors leave, went to give him assurance of it, he commanded his Dea­con Theodor. Lect. l. 2. first to take off his Episcopal Robe, and so he went into the Baptistry to Euphemius; and besides borrowed Money to present him with for him­self and his Attendants. This is a suf­ficient evidence both of his respect for Euphemius, and of his acknowledg­ing him to have the Authority still, notwithstanding his own advancement to the See. And in these Cases it was scarce greater force upon the Bishop that was deposed, than upon him that was promoted; but they by consent did what they saw most advantageous for the Church i [...] those difficult Cir­cumstances, thinking it no time for the Orthodox to divide from one ano­ther, when their Number was so small in compa [...]ison of the Hereticks, who had a zealous Emperor at the head of them.

The case was the same in the De­privation Vit. Sabae, c. 56. of Elias Bishop of Jerusa­lem; John, his Successor, had promi­sed the Emperor to anathematize the Council of Chalcedon, but was pre­vailed upon by the Orthodox, to make profession of the True Faith; for which he was cast into Prison, and was to have been banished, but the Sabas and the rest of the Monks petitioned the Emperor to keep him in the See, knowing that it was impossible to get Elias restored, and that if John were cast out for being Orthodox, the next in Succession must of consequence be an Heretick.

This then only proves, that there has been such a Case, when, to prevent Heresies in the Church, Bishops have resigned their Sees, or at least have consented that others should succeed them; but this is so far from being an Argument, that in all Cases, and with­out their consent, an Usurper ought to be communicated with, in prejudice to the Authority of the true Bishop, that it plainly proves the contrary. St. Gregory Nazianzene for the like Reasons resigned the Bishoprick of C. P. saying, that he was contented to be the Jonas, who should be thrown over-board, to all [...]y the Storms that threatned the Church: But can we from hence conclude, that Nectarius, his Successor, would have been owned by the Church as Patriarch of C. P. if St. Gregory had not resigned? Or must we not rather conclude, that the Church would never have acknowledged him. And like this seems to have been the Case of the Jews under the Romans; the High Priest by right of Succession [Page 17] receding, and being glad upon any terms to preserve the true Religion and Worship of God, rather than with the whole Jewish Nation to be deprived of it, under Heathen Gover­nours.

Hitherto our Author has spoken only of the Patriarchs of C. P. ex­cepting that he occasionally mention­ed Meletius upon the account of St. Chrys [...]stom and Elias, on occasion of Euphemius. But after he has pro­ceeded thus far, he takes a large step back again to inform us, that St. Cyrill, Bishop of Jerusalem came into that See contrary to the Canons, being by Arians put into the room of Maxi­mus, who was thrust out, for having taken part with St. Athanasius. Now St. Cyrill, says he, was, notwithstand­ing upon his Conversion to the Or­thodox Faith, acknowledged for Pa­triarch of Jerusalem, and even Ma­ximus himself did not withdraw from Cyrill's Communion.

For the proof of all this, he refers to the Life of St. Athanasius, whereas Vit. Athan. p. 48. the Author of his Life only says that Acacius and Patrophilus thrust Maxi­mus out of the See of Jerusalem, and placed Cyrill there, but says nothing of Maximus's holding Communion with Cyrill afterwards: Yet he saying nothing to the contrary, our Author takes it for granted, that Maximus did communicate with Cyrill; where­as he mentioning Maximus upon the account only of St. Athanasi­us, had no occasion to take any fur­ther notice either of him, or of Cyrill, than St. Athanasius was concerned in Socr. l. 2. c. 38. it.

I confess Socrates agrees with this anonymous Authour of the Life of St. Athanasius, in relating that Maxi­mus was turned out of his Bishoprick Hieron. in Chron. by Acacius and Patrophilus to make way for Cyrill: But St. Hierom on the contrary says, that Maximus was dead before St. Cyrill came into his See; and Theodorite, ^(p) that Maximus being translated to an immortal Life▪ Cyrill succeeded him, who was a vi­gorous defender of the Catholick Faith; and to put this matter out of all di [...] ­pute, besides St. Hierom and Theodo­ret, we have the express Testimony of the ^(q) General Council of C. P. that he came in c [...]nonically, being ordained by the Bishops of the Pro­vince, and had in divers places signal [...] ­zed himself in maintaining the Catho­lick Faith against the Arians.

But there being one Cyrill an Arian, who, soon after Maximus, was made Bishop of Jerusalem, and was the next Bishop but one to St. Cyrill, the great Uncertainty and Confusion that there is in the Catalogue of the Bishops of this See at that time, as may be seen by comparing the different accounts of their Names in St. Hierom, Epipha­nius, Hieron. in Chron. Epiphan. Haer. 66. Niceph. and Nicephorus; might easily occasion the Aspersions, which have been cast upon this Father by some Writers, who supposed St. Cyrill the Arian was that Cyrill, who was next in Succession to Maximus. But it is abundantly See the Life of S. Cyrill, by Dr. Cave. sufficient in his Vindica­tion, that a general Council by their united Suffrages have attested both to his being Orthodox, and to the Ca­nonicalness of his Consecration. But I must not omit here to take notice, that tho Socrates and the Author of the Life of St. Athanasius do both say, that Cyrill was made Bishop of Jeru­salem [Page 18] by Usurpation, during the Life of Maximus; yet they mention this as done under Constantius, and it is a Mistake peculiar to our Author to place it under the Reign of Constantine the Great, in contradiction to all History.

The Author now returns again to Pag. 9. Constantinople, and says that when Eu­tychius was deposed from that See, and John preferred to it, in the Reign of Justinian, Eutychius continued to communicate with John: Which he could bring no Proof of, but there is undeniable Proof of the contrary. For Eustathius, who was an Eye Wit­ness to all this business, and a con­stant Attendant upon Eutychius ^(r), has left it written in his Life, that Eu­tychius pronounced Excommunication against the Synod, which was called to depose him, till they should repent of it, and restore him.

All that he says concerning Anthi­mus, Pag. 9. Sergius, and others, whose Or­dinations, tho they were Hereticks, were allowed of as valid, needs no An­swer, enough having been already said on that Point, in the Case of Mele­tius.

Callinicus, he acquaints us, after he Pag. 10. was deposed by Justinian Rhinotme­tus, did not depart from the Commu­nion of Cyrus, who was appointed his Successor. He might as well have said, that Callinicus saw and conversed with Cyrus, after the loss of his Eyes, when he was as far from him as Rome is from Constantinople: For this had Cedren. p. 446. Theophan. p. 313. Niceph. Constanti­nop. p. 28. been more agreable to the way of writing Legends, and has altogether as much foundation in History as that. For the Historians only say, that the Emperor caused his Eyes to be put out, and then banished him to Rome, but what became of him there, or with whom he communicated, they do not inform us.

The next Instance which he dwells Pag. 11. longer upon, than any other in his whole Treatise, is nothing at all to his pur­pose. For what if Theodorus Studites were in fault for separating from the Patriarchs Tarasius and Nicepho­rus, because they had admitted Joseph the Steward of the Church to Com­munion, who had officiated in an un­lawful Marriage? How does this prove, that although a Bishop was unjustly deprived, neither he nor the Church ever made a Separation, if the Suc­cessor was not an Heretick? Were Tarasius and Nicephorus Intruders? Or did Theodorus separate upon that ac­count? No such thing is pretended; but Joseph had been guilty of a scan­dalous and wicked Action▪ and yet was suffered to continue in Communion, and hereupon Theodorus withdraws himself from the Church, for which he is blamed, and very justly: But this only shews, that private Christians ought not to forsake the Church, tho the Discipline of it should not be so duly administred as they could wish, but must take care of their own Duty, tho the Church Governours should be negligent of theirs.

After so much said in so short a Pag. 17. Book beside the Subject, he at last comes again to the Point, but falls upon such an Example as is alone e­nough to disparage his whole Perfor­mance, with any one almost, that has ever heard of the Names of Ignatius and Photius. For what can be more notorious than that Ignatius did not Communicate with Photius, after he was displaced, and Photius got into the See? can we imagin he Communicated with one, by whom he stood himself Excommunicated? with one, who was Excomunicated by his best Friend and Advocate Pope Nicholas? and who in return had Excommunicated the said [Page 19] Pope? ^(s) For Photius had not been Consecrated forty days before he openly Deposed and Anathematised Ignatius, as we have it related in an account, that Ignatius sent to Pope Nicholas to ac­quaint him how Photius had dealt with him. Ignatius was soon after sent into Nicet. vit. Ignat. p. 1222. Banishment, where he was kept under so close Confinement, that he was not suffered to perform any part of his Function, and as he was not allowed to stir out, so no body was permitted to come to him. And if there be any thing of certainty in all the History of those affairs, nothing can be more certain, than that Ignatius and Photius did not hold Communion with each other, for nothing occurs more frequently than the Anathema's, which they pronoun­ced one against the other.

But all the Reason our Author seems to have in this and some other Instances, to conclude that the Deposed Patriarch did not refuse Communion with the In­truder, is because both their names were read in the Diptycks: whereas this one instance of Ignatius and Photius is e­nough to convince us that this is no good Argument: for it is certain that these two Bishops did not hold Commu­nion with one another; & yet after these differences were composed, which had been occasioned in the Church by set­ting up Photius, both their names were Recorded in the Diptycks; and proba­bly neither Party being to be wrought upon to recede from their Pretensions in behalf of the Patriarch, whose Right they had maintained, this was found to be the only Expedient, to do the same honour, to both of them, which might without difficulty be agreed to, since the Synod, which restored Photius af­ter the death of Ignatius, had cancelled all the Acts, against Photius, of that Council which Deposed him, and re­stored Ignatius: and this Council which restored Photius, is by the Greeks reckoned the eighth General Council.

Concerning the Deposing of Photius P. 18, 19. a second time, and the Deposing of Ni­cholas, Zonaras, whom our Author Zon. Tom. 3. p. 113. quotes, says nothing, from which it may be collected that Photius continu­ed Communion with Stephen, and Ni­cholas with Euthymius, who were put into their rooms. But because Zona­ras says nothing to the contrary, he concludes, that they did hold Commu­nion with them, which is a very falla­cious way of arguing, to make Infe­rences from a Negative, without any other Reason or Circumstance; espe­cially in so short an account as Zonaras gives of these things, who only says, in as few words, as he can well express himself in, that the Emperour picking a quarrel with the Patriarch sent him in­to a Monastery, and appointed his Bro­ther Stephen to be Patriarch; and that Nicholas was likewise put into a Mo­nastery; and Euthymius constituted Patriarch in his stead. And the same Author in S. Chrysostom's Case takes no notice of that separation, which was occasioned by his Banishment, for thirty five years together in the Church, which the more ancient Historians inlarge so much upon, and set forth in so many particulars. And to be convinced that nothing ought to be concluded from the silence, especially of these latter Historiars and Annalists, we need only compare what these write, with the ac­count which Theodorite, and Socrates, and Sozomen give of the same Actions, and when it is notorious, that they commonly omit things as material as those they take notice of, nothing more need be said to shew, how little regard is to be had to their omission of things; it is well if we may depend upon what they relate, but to say such a thing never was, because they do not relate it, is such a way of arguing as [Page 20] only betrays the weakness of the Cause, and shews how great want there is of better Arguments.

And as for the Ordinations of Eu­thymius, Pag. 20. which he says, were not re­jected after Nicholas was restored a­gain, I have shewn how insignificant an Argument that is, when even after He­reticks were received into the Church upon their Conversion, their Orders were not disallowed.

But his account of Cosmas Atticus [...]. is the boldest stroke we have had yet, for, when Nicetas Choniates, whose Authority he alledges. says in express terms, ^(t) that he Excommunicated some of the Courtiers, and the Synod too, which Deposed him, this Author has the confidence to quote Nicetas to vouch for him, that Cosmas Atticus never separated from the Communion of his Deposers. But we have had ex­perience enough of our Author by this time, not to wonder much now at whatever he is pleased to say.

Of the Deposing the Patriarchs Basi­lius, Pag. 21. Camaterus, and Nicetas, we have only a bare Narrative in Nicetas Chonia­tes, but upon the Promotion of Dosi­theus in the room of Leontius, he ex­presly says, that the chief Bishops, look­ing upon his Translation from Jeru­salem to Constantinople to be contrary to the Canons, ^(u) held separate As­semblies.

Our Author has observed that in the space of nine years the Emperour Isaacius Angelus made five Patriarchs successively, who were all alive toge­ther; but he might have spared his Admiration, that they did not sepa­rate from one anothers Communion: for if this had been the approved and constant Practice of the Church as he pretends, what great matter of Admi­ration could it be, that five Patriarchs should do as all their Predecessors had done in the like Case? B [...]t the only wonder is, how this Author comes to know, that they did not separate, when the Historian, whom he quotes, says no such thing.

It is plain indeed; that if the Em­perour had but any pretence (and it was hard if he could find none) the Greek Church in these Ages was so low, and the Clergy of so base and ab­ject Spirits, that they were prepared to comply with any thing: and if they ex­pressed their Resentments it was in such a manner, as could become the Zeal only of these degenerate times. Thus when Euthymius was Deposed, to make Cedren. p. 607. way for the Restauration of Nicholas to his See again, the Clergy, who were of Nicholas's Party, fell upon Euthy­mius like mad Men, and beat him with their Fists, and plucked him by the Beard, and flung him down, calling him Usurper, and Adulterer: and if it should be granted that Men who could shew such barbarous usage, should notwithstanding keep in Communion with the Usurper, whom they could think to deserve such usage from them; I suppose their examp [...]e will be thought of no better Authority in the one than in the other.

But upon the whole matter, after a full examination of all the Instances, which this Author has brought to main­tain his Assertion; I must conclude in contradiction to it, that very few, if any, Examples can be produced of Bishops, who were unjustly Deposed, that did hold Communion with the In­truders; and that therefore upon the account of any thing, which is offered in this Treatise, a Separation is not Un­reasonable.

SInce my writing this, I have met with the Greek and Latin Edi­tion of this Author, and besides Mr. Hody's Preface, there are some few things in the Book it self further to be observed.

In the English Preface to this Treatise we are told, that there is no Name prefixt before it; nor any Characters in it that may lead, us to a proba­ble Conjecture; about the Author: But Mr. Hody, in his Preface to the Greek and Latin Edi­tion, thinks he has discovered the Author to be Nicephorus Gal­listus; that which he grounds his Conjecture upon is, that this Discourse is in the same Volume with several other Ma­nuscripts, which have the Name of Nicephorus Callistus to them, but he does not ac­quaint us that this is written in the same hand with the rest, nor that it has the least Connexion or Affinity with them; nor that all the other Tracts in that Volume have his Name before them; and when the other Treatises have his Name prefixed, and this has it not, it is most probable that this is not his; for if it were, it would bear his Name as well as the rest: Indeed, if some of the most remarkable Tracts only had his Name to them, and others, which were known to be his, were among them without his Name, it would not be unlikely that this might be his too; but when the rest have his Name, and this has none, what can be more reasonably concluded from it, than that there was as much cause why his Name should be omitted in this, as why it was pre [...]xt before the [...]est? Mr. Hody himself observes, that there is no e [...]ct agree­ment in the Catalogue of the Patriarchs of C. P. by Nice­phorus, [Page 22] and the account of them in this Author. But there is a much greater and more obvious Difference be­tween them than that, for Nicephorus Callistus writes in an easie flowing stile, and with great Elegancy, considering the Age in which he wrote; but our Author is heavy and unpleasant, and scarce able to express that little he has to say; and the best thing that can be said of his stile is, that it is as good as the Subject deserves, and it is great pity that such Stuff should be put into any better Language. But there is another Difference be­tween these two Authors yet more remarkable; for Nice­phorus, giving an account of ^(a) St. Chrysostom's parting Words to his Friends, makes their holding Communion with the succeeding Bishop to depend wholly upon his Per­mission; he says, that St. Chry­sostom did an extraordinary thing, which was without ex­ample, and had something more than Humane in it, when he gave leave to his Friends to live in communion with Bishops, by whom he had been so ill used: Where­as our Author makes it not to depend upon any Permission of the rightful Bishop, but to be the constant practice of the Church, and the indispen­sable Duty of all Christians to submit to every Intruder, if he be no Heretick.

But if there were as much reason to believe that Nice­phorus Callistus was the Au­thor of this Treatise, as there is to think that he was not, yet his Name would give no great Credit to it, but a Sus­picion rather, that it is not to be credited: For, except­ing Malela, lately published by Mr. Hody, there is scarce any Author more fabulous than Nicephorus. But this Manu­script outgoes even Malela, and may have the Reputa­tion of being the worst Greek Author extant, 'till Mr. Hody is pleased to publish some other.

Both the Latin and the En­glish Preface suppose this Tract to have been a Sermon or Ho­mily, or at least, as it is ad­ded in the Latin, to have been a Lecture in the Schools of some Professor of History, be­cause in two places he bespeaks his Auditor, and not his Rea­der. I have no mind to main­tain a Controversie about a [Page 23] thing of no moment, but this Reason does not satisfie me; for I find that ^(b) Epiphanius addresses himself to his Audi­tors in his Book against Here­sies, tho no Man can therefore imagin, that that Book consists of as many Homilies, as he treats of Heresies; and he writes in the same manner in his Book of Measures and Weights, tho it appears, that that Book was neither an Ho­mily, nor a Lecture. I rather believe, that Copies of Books being dear and scarce, before the Invention of Printing, it was customary to recite other Discourses as well as Homilies or Lectures, and that there­fore such Expressions might either be used at first by the Author, or be afterwards in­serted by him that recited it. Besides, the stile of this Trea­tise does not seem at all like to that of an Homily; for their Homilies, after the de­cay of Learning, were full of Hyperboles, Anti [...]heses, Tau­tologies, and frequent Repe­titions of the same Words, and all the Affectations of a false Eloquence; but our Au­thor uses few Words, with­out any shew of Eloquence, or pretence to it; for to do him right, he seems to have understood his own Talent better, than to pretend to any thing in that way.

Having said thus much of the Author, Mr. Hody comes now to give an account of his Reasons for the Publica­tion, and here he informs his Reader in very tragical Terms, that the Church of England being all in Flames, he, for our comfort, has found out this new Engine to quench the Fire. I desire to be as apprehensive of the Mischiefs of Schism as any Man, and therefore must beseech all Christians seriously to consi­der, whether this Treatise be not more likely to pro­mote Schisms in the Church, than to prevent or remove them.

His next business is to set down some Examples from Antiquity, which he puts our present Bishops in mind, it is their duty to follow. The first is that of S. Chrysostom, but he has said no more of him than we had before in the English Preface, excepting that he has framed a new Speech for him; which makes me begin to suspect that per­haps Palladius took the same [Page 24] liberty, that Mr. Hody has done; for Declamations are as usual and altogether as pro­per in a Dialogue as in a Pre­face.

His next Instance is of St. Augustin and the rest of the African Bishops in the Confe­rence at Carthage ^(c). The account S. Augustin gives us is this, that before they held this Conference with the Dona­tists, the Catholick Bishops made a Proposal, that if the Donatists could convince them, that they were in the wrong, they would be contented to be received by the Donatists, not as Bishops, but to Lay-Communion only, as private Christians; but the Donatist Bishops, if they were convi­cted of Error, should be per­mitted, upon their Repentance, to preside in the same Sees together with the Catholick Bishops, and the Survivors to be the sole Bishops of the Sees; or if it would not be ap­proved of, that there should be two Bishops at once of the same Church; that both the Catholick and Donatist Bi­shops should resign, and that new Bishops should be ap­pointed in all such Churches, where the Donatists had their Bishops, as well as the Catho­licks. And St. Augustin says, that of almost Three Hundred Bishops, th [...]re were but Two who made any scruple or de­mur upon it, all besides were earnest and zealous for this Expedient; and these Two were soon brought over to be of the same mind with the rest. This is the full of what St. Augustin relates, and I need not tell the Reader, tho I must tell Mr. Hody, that it is nothing to the present Sub­ject: But it is observable that the Schismatical Bishops were so refractory in the Conference at Carthage, that they gave little encouragement for the Rightful Bishops to make any such Proposals to Intruders afterwards.

St. Gregory Nazianzen's Case has been spoken to already: And as for the Advice which St. Dionysius of Alexandria gave to Novatian, when he pretended that he was unwil­lingly made Bishop, that this would be best seen by his de­sisting from his Ʋsurpation; it is admirable Advice, and I hope, all will take notice of it, who are concerned.

Another Citation he pro­duces from the first I pistle of St. Clement to the Corinthians, to shew, that that Father ex­horted the Presbyters, who were ordained by the Apo­stles themselves, rather to re­cede from their Right, when they were [...]urned out by a Faction; than to occasion any [Page 25] Division in the Church. But it seems plain to me, that St. Clement gives this Admo­nition, not to the Rightful Presbyters, but to those who had stirred up and fomented the Differences: For not long before he exhorts ^(c) all who had been the principal Authors and Abettors of Se­dition and Dissention, to re­gard the common Good more than their own private Inter­est; for those who lived in Charity, would rather con­demn themselves, than destroy the Order and Discipline of the Church; and it was bet­ter for Men to confess their Sins, than to harden their Hearts, as Corah and his As­sociates did, who raised a Se­dition against Moses; and as Pharaoh and the Egyptians had likewise done: Then he ex­horts them to the Confession of c. 52. their Sins from several Passa­ges out of the Psalms, and af­terwards sets before them the Example of Moses, who in a c. 53. wonderful Extasie of Zeal and Charity for the People, who had sacrificed to the molten Calf, desired rather to be him­self blotted out of God's Book, than that they should perish; and then says, that if there were any among them of a generous and charitable and c. 54. truly Christian Spirit, he would depart; and go whither they pleased, if so be, the People would live quietly and peace­ably under the Presbyters con­stituted over them. And be­sides c. 55. the Example of Moses, he proceeds to take notice, that among the Gentiles them­selves, Kings and other Ma­gistrates had often exposed their own Persons to danger and ruin for the Preservation of their People, and others had left their Countrey rather than they would be the occasion of any disturbance in it; nay, that many Christians had to his own knowledg delivered themselves up into Captivi­ty to redeem others, and ma­ny had sold themselves for Slaves to feed others with the Price of their own Servitude: And among the Jews, Judith and Esther refused no Dan­gers for the Deliverance of their Nation. ^(d) Let us then, says he, pray for those who are in fault, ^(*) that [Page 26] Meekness and Humility may be given them, that they may yield, not to us, but to the W [...]ll of God. And because this might seem a hard saying to many, and too difficult to be put in practice, he shews them that they ought patiently to re­ceive Admonition, and to submit to that Correction and Chastisement, which God should be pleased to inflict either by his own Hand upon them, or by the Discipline of the Church: You therefore that have laid the Foundations of Sedition, submit your selves to the Presbyters, in order to your Repentance, and be humble, c. 57. and learn to be obedient; laying aside the proud and boasting Ar­rogance of your Tongue; for it is better to be one of the little ones, who are approved of in the Flock of Christ, than by as­piring too high, to fall short of your hope; or, 16 [...]. marg. to be cast out of the Fold. The Force of St▪ Clement's Discourse seems to be this, that if Moses was so indulgent and affectionate towards the People who had sinned so heinously against God; this ought to be a powerful Motive to those, who had been themselves cri­minal, to resign up all par­ticular Interests for the Peace of the Church; and if it had been so usual for the most in­nocent and worthy Persons to sacrifice their own Safety and Honours to the publick, it might much rather be ex­pected from such as had them­selves given the first occasion to the Divisions in the Church. His Design is the same that Dionysius afterwards had in his Letter to Novation, and that he might persuade them the more effectually to desist from their Pretensions, he tells them that this was no more than the most worthy and heroick Persons had done before them; not upbraiding them too severely with their past Miscarriages, and presing it upon them as a Duty, which in justice they were bound to, and which was the least satisfaction they could make to the Church, to forbear those Practices which had cau­sed so much Disturbance▪ but proceeding in a more gentle Method; and yet in the mean time not failing to let them know, that he required them not to resign any Right, but to desist from an unjust Claim, which was the least that could be expected of them; but if it should seem grievous to Men who had been so long puffed up with vain Expe­ctations, and high Conceits of themselves, to be thus hum­bled at last, he acquaints them, that they must consider, that the Chastisements of God must [Page 27] be born with patience in much severer instances than this affli­ction, which they had brought upon themselves, and that however irksom it might now seem, it would bring Peace and Joy to them in the end.

But if we understand St. Clement, as Mr. Hody does, to exhort those, who were the lawful Presbyters to resign their Right, rather than be the occasion, through the Wickedness and Injustice of others towards them, of Trou­ble and Disorder to the Church, we must necessarily suppose some extraordinary Circumstances, which made St. Clement advise them to this Condescension in their parti­cular Case. For it is not to be imagined that he should lay it down as a general Rule in all Cases, that a Bishop or Presbyter, whenever he is molested or dispossessed, must give way to the Intruder for Peace sake; but we must of necessity understand this Pre­cept and Admonition in some such qualified sense, as we do those Commands of our Sa­viour himself, Whosoever shall Mat. 5. 39, 40. smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. For to oblige all honest Men to suffer themselves to be abused, and to give up their Rights of any kind for the sake of Peace and Quietness, would be so far from being a means to procure Peace, that it would be the readiest and most effe­ctual way to all manner of Confusion in the World. So that the utmost that this Quo­tation from St. Clement can amount to, is only thus much, that for some special Reasons, and in some extraordinary Ca­ses, it would be an act of great Charity and worthy of a Christian, for a Bishop to con­descend so far, as to recede from his own Right; which affords nothing in proof of that Doctrin, that this Greek Author is published to ad­vance, That although a Bishop was unjustly deprived, neither he nor the Church ever made a Separation; if the Successor was not an Heretick.

The Quotations from St. Ire­naeus, and from the Apostles Constitutions are excellent Cautions and Persuasions a­gainst Schisms in general, but do not in the least concern the Cause before us. And I heartily pray, that either their Authority or any other may have the effect, which it ought, upon those, who are most concerned seriously to take no­tice of them, towards the pre­venting [Page 28] a Schism, which seems to threaten the Destruction of the best Church in the World; to the Ruin whereof nothing can more contribute, than to teach that a Bishop, when once deposed, tho never so ^(e) unjustly, ceases to be any longer Bishop of his See: Which are Words now put into St. Chrysostom's Mouth; but how much a­gainst all reason and probabi­lity has been already shewn.

In the Book it self, where it is said, that Meletius was p. 1. translated from Sebastia to Antioch, Eustathius being yet in Banishment; in the English Edition this Eustathius is sup­posed to be Eustathius late Bishop of Sebastia: But in the Greek and Latin Edition, Eustathius late Bishop of An­tioch; p. 4. and a Note is subjoyn'd to inform us, that both So­crates and Sozomen say, that Eustathius Bishop of Antioch lived till the Reign o [...] Valens, and that the Arguments which Baronius and Valesius bring to the contrary, are not of weight enough to be set against the Authority of these two Hi­storians.

Baronius argues, that Eu­stathius of Antioch never lived to be recalled from Banishment by Jovian, but died in exile under Constantius: For if he had been recalled, it cannot be supposed, that no mention should be made of him in the Synod of Antioch, which was held at that time by the Or­thodox; and besides neither Meletius nor Paulinus would have been suffered by the Peo­ple of Antioch to be confe­crated, and reside there as their Bishop, if he had been still living, without their di­viding into Parties about it; since a great part of the Or­thodox from their great Zeal and Affection for him were denominated Eustathians. And if Eustathius had survived his Banishment, there is no que­stion, but both Meletius and Paulinus would have resigned the See to him at his return. For Meletius was put into that See at the earnest desire of the orthodox Bishops after the Banishment of Eustathius, and he who was so condes­cending to Paulinus, would have yielded much more to Eustathius himself: For all the pretence that Paulinus could have, was to be Bishop over a Party of Men, who for the great Veneration they had for Eustathius, were called Eusta­thians; [Page 29] and who would not live in communion with Me­letius, because he had been ordained by Arians: And it is absurd to think that Pau­linus, the chief of the Eusta­thian Party, would retain his Bishoprick, if Eustathius him­self had been yet living; un­less perhaps we say, that Eu­stathius had wholly relin­quished his See to him, and that he lived concealed at Con­stantinople, or in some other place from the time of his first Banishment (as Socrates and Sozomen say, he did, in the Reign of Valens) till he was a second time banished. But to put this out of all Contro­versie, Theodorite expresly ^(f) says, that Eustathius was dead before Meletius succeeded him in the See of Antioch, and his Authority alone, without any concurring Evidence, is suffi­cient to oppose to that of Socrates and Sozomen: But if it were not, besides what has been already said, their Ac­count, as Valesius observes, disagrees from what St. Hierom Vales. ad Socr. l. 4. c. 15. and Theodorus Lector, and Theophanes relate concerning this Eustathius: So that we must conclude, that Eustathius of Sebastia is meant by the Greek Author, or else that this is another of his Mistakes.

In the Greek it is said, p. 5. that Arsacius because of the Jealousie of his Brother Necta­rius towards him, had former­ly sworn, that he would never accept of the See of Constanti­nople. But in the English this is omitted in the Text, and set down only in the Mar­gin, with this Note; that p. 2. the Manuscript in this place is written erroneously. Mr. Hody in the Greek and Latin Edi­tion takes no notice, that this is an Error, being more ten­der now, it seems, of the Cre­dit of his Author, and per­haps of Palladius too, from Pallad. p. 94. whom he had it.

I wish Mr. Hody had been as careful of his Author's Re­putation, and of his own too in all other Respects as in this. And after such Prote­stations of sincere and chari­table Intentions in publishing this Manuscript, it could hard­ly be imagined that he had omitted any thing, which be­longed to this wonderful Trea­tise, which he so much values and so highly magnifies: But it is an unlucky thing to be engaged in a Cause, which no Author ever yet had e­nough of the Greek in him [Page 30] to maintain; and therefore, as I am well assured, he has left out a Collection of Canons at the end of the Manuscript written in the same hand, and by the same Author; which shews that the Author is to be under­stood of synodical Deprivations: For, since there were no sy­nodical Proce [...]dings in the pre­sent Deprivations, that part of the Manuscript must be suppressed, lest it should make all the rest impertinent to the Controversie arising from the present state of our Church, tho it were all as true, as I have shewn it to be false. The Canons annexed are a suffi­cient Answer to the Book, as far as we are concerned in it, and therefore it was great Prudence to conceal them. This looks as if Malela were not only fabulous, but infe­ctious too, and will be apt to make Men suspect, that Malela himself is worse in the Print than in the Manuscript.

And this is all that I shall say, and I think a great deal more than was necessary to be said, of a Book, which instead of being sent into the World with so much Ostentation and Triumph, would have been in danger of a publick Censure at any other time but this, since the Reformation; except­ing only that Interval, when we had all our Bishops deposed at once. And to endeavour to maintain a Cause by such Ar­guments and such Au [...]horities, as are both notoriously false, and of so pernicious conse­quence, that they would have been suffered at no other time, and any other Cause would have been ashamed of them; and then to be forced too up­on such Arts, as may be ve­ry necessary in an ill Cause, but would never surely be used in a good one, is no less than a Confession of the badness of a Cause; and is so far from being a Defence, that it is an evident sign, that it cannot be defended.