A Farther ACCOUNT OF THE Baroccian Manuscript, Lately published at Oxford, together with the Canons Omitted in that Edition. In a Letter to his Friend in London.
Enquire after the Old Ways.


YOu Surprise me with the Baroc­cian Manuscript, but much more with the Account of the Credit it has gotten. Its Admirers, I presume, take it to be an excellent Tract upon R. B's word, and fancy ( [...]) Providence was concerned in the discovery and Publica­tion of this piece. I must confess Provi­dence has of late been thought very busie, but I can assure you that Treatise was known in my time, and despised too. The Reasons you will meet with anon, and after a short Examination, I dare be confi­dent you will confess it deserves no bet­ter usage.

The Editor endeavours to get some Re­putation to this piece, by fathering it up­on Pref. p. 1. Niaphorus Callisti, a Man (he says) better skilled in Eccle­siastical History than any of the same Age. Now, Sir, you know this Age was the 13th Century, a time not over-stockt with Church Historians of any Credit; and therefore tho' he was the best of that Age, yet the Censures of other Criticks vid Beram Not. ad Act. Apost. C. 1. v. 13. & Ca­sabonum Exercit. 1. Sect. 17. may be just, who say he was an idle Story-teller, of lit­tle Judgment but much Super­stition. But not to quarrel about Niaphorus, let us look upon the reasons why the Editor fancys him to be the Author of this Treatise.

1st. He says this Piece is found in a Book mark [...] CXLII amongst the Pref. p. 1. Baroccian MSS in that Bodleian Library at Oxford, in which Book there are some Historical Treatises, and particularly a Catalogue of the Patriarchs of Constantinople under Niaphorus's name. This is all true, but the Editor should have observed that that Book is a bundle of several Treatises of several Authors, and particularly that this Tract is writ­ten in a different hand from those to which the name of Niaphorus is affixt. So that from the Book it self there is not the least reason to conjecture that Niaphorus compiled this piece.

He further saith that Niaphorus must be the Author, because the Compiler may be [Page 2] suppos'd to live within the Patriarcha of Constantinople, and about the time Nia­phorus flourished. There, he says, are no light conjectures. And indeed Nia­phorus Pref. p. 1. is much obliged to him for giving him a title to all the nameless fol­lys of that Age. But if the Editor would have shown himself a true Critick, he would have compared the matter and stile of this Treatise with Niaphorus's History; and then he would have found that Nia­phorus had a better Pen, more Judgment and Sincerity than this Collector. At least he would have considered that a Fa­vorite of an Emperor, who mortally ha­ted the Latins, would not have used the Authority of the Bishops of Rome, when he might have [...]d. p. 8. 9. & 10. of the Latin & G. [...]diti [...]on. met with as great Examples in his own Church: The best account I can give of the Manuscript is this. The Compiler of it seems to be a Latiniz'd Greek, and at the time when he wrote it he was a kind of a Tutor, and this piece was a reading to his Boys, so injudicious­ly compos'd, and in so mean a stile, that nothing but the Barbarity of the Age, and the meanness of the Auditory can make any tolerable excuse for it. To think it a Homily, and pronounced in a Council of Bishops (as the Editor seems willing to opine) is to libel a Century; for how can a Man disgrace an Pref. p. 2. Age more then by supposing the Bishops, the Men of Wisdom and Authority in it could patiently sit out such an indigested crude tale? Had it still lain amongst the Boys, it had been in its proper place; but to bring it out to Men, and triumph in the Discovery, shows only that some do not know what Manuscripts are worth printing. With this Character I should leave the Author, but R. B. deserves a little more respect; and therefore, pray tell him when you see him next, that the Oxford Copy of this Treatise is not the only Copy in the world; Co­telirius had one of the same vid. Coteleri. Not. in 3d Tom. Men. Grac. p. 645. compared with p. 25. lin. 14. of the G. & L. Edition. piece, and had that great Man lived a little longer, it would have been published, and no doubt with the Canons at the end of it (the Reason why these were left out in this Edition you will meet with in the Close of this Paper) and then Providence had not reserved it for Mr. Hody's version, nor R▪ B's preface.

However the Church of England is now on fire, and the Nethenim is ready with his Buckets and Ladders to Pref. p. 3. put it out. The first affront is to give the depriv'd Bishops adivce out of St. Clemens, and perswade them to Pref. p. 8. resign. (There would not be much need of this if the People were already free.) 'Tis true, St. Clemens not only advises the injured Presbyters Sect. 54. Edit. Oxon. at Corinth, but tells them it was their real interest to with-draw; but then this Council comes after a very se­vere Lecture to the People for their diso­bedience. He tells them (Sect. 1.) their defection was impious, and destable fomented by bold impudent Men, and a great Scandal to Religion. He admonisheth them to right their injured Ministers, and tells them they had been diligent in their Of­fice, and were great Ornaments of the Church. (Sect. 44.) he adds that they lay under a great Sin. [...]. (Sect. 44.) Nor is that venerable Father less Zealous in his Address to the People to adhere, (even after he had given this advice to the Presbyters, Sect. 57.) than [Page 3] to the Presbyters to recede from an obsti­nate Generation. Yet I shall freely own the direction is excellent; and who would more freely follow it then the ptesent Bishops, were the case of the Church of England like that of Corinth? But let us suppose that by such a recess the Laws of the Empire had been violated, the Doctrines of the Church, for which they had suf­fered Persecution, the mockings of the wordly, and the railing of the Proud, exposed; and that Ecclesiastical Jurisdi­ction which Christ settled on the Apostles, and they delivered to their Successors, be­trayed; and then would St. Clemens have advised them to with-draw? Any man may answer that he was St. Paul's com­panion, and therefore doubtless of his opinion who would not give place to In­truders ('tis the Editor's word) so much as for one hour, Gal. 2. v. 5.

The next advice comes from St. Austin and almost three hundred Afri­can Bishops, who offer'd to re­sign Pref. p. 6. their Bishopricks to preserve the Ʋ ­nity of the Church: and no doubt they had made a very good purchase. But is there no way, to preserve the Unity of the Church but the Resignation of the In­jur'd? Will not their Restoration do as well? and would it not be a more Chri­stian application to address the Intruders to make reparation, and do right to God and Man at once? the Injur'd may with-draw, but the Injurious I am sure, are bound to do it by greater and stron­ger obligations, than those that come from African, however venerable Examples.

But here, Sir, I must beg leave to ex­postulate a little, and desire to know what grievous offence I committed, that I must be enjoyned the ungrateful pennance of examining a piece, in which I can meet with nothing but confidence, disingenuity and shuffle. For I have reason to believe the Editor never lookt into St. Austin, nor the Conference at Carthage which he quotes; had he seen the Books, he would not have given Marcellinus another title then that he meets with in them: Mar­cellinus is called Tribunus Notarius and Cognitor, but Passim in Coll. Ca [...] ­t [...]ag. tom. 2. Counc. and in Brericulo ejus­dem Coll. inter op. August. tom. 7. never Vicegerens, and the Emperors Honorius and Theodosius constitute him only Moderator of the Assembly with power to give sentence after a full hear­ing of the Catholick Bishops, and the par­ty of Donatus, Cui quidem Disputationi principe loco te vid Council. tom. 2. p. 1346. judicem volumus residere. Nor had it been possible for a Man of so much Zeal for Unity, as the Editor pre­tends, to have mangled the Catholick Bi­shop's Letter to Marcellinus, or given another state of the matter then what St. Austin had drawn up. The whole Letter is too long to be transcribed, & therefore you must content your self with that ve­nerable Father's abstract of it. In jisdem literis e­tiam Breviculum Coll. Car­thag. primae diei Sect. 5. inter Op. August. tom. 7. se obstrinxerunt Ca­tholici & polliciti sunt, si in parte Donati veritas eis demonstraretur Ecclesiae, non se illic Episcopalem Honorem quaesituros; sed consilium eorum secuturos pro salute Christianâ: fi autem in sua Commu­nione potius veritas estanderetur Ecclesiae, Honores Episcopales eis se non negaturos: & hoc a se fieri bono pacis, ut intelligerent Hi quibus hoc praestaretur in ijs Catholici non Christianam Consecrationem, sed humanum ditestarentur err [...]rem. Quod si Plebes duos in una Ecclesia Episcopos ferre non possent, Ʋtrisq de medio recedentibus singuli, consti­tuerentur Episcopi, abijs Episcopis ordinandi [Page 4] qui in suis Plebibus singuli invenirentur. The [...]atholick Bishops did not offer to resign, [...]ut upon condition the party of Donatus would do so too: And therefore the Edi­ [...]or before he made use of this Example, [...]ould have gotten a Commission to pro­ [...]ose it.

The next is drawn from the behaviour of Gregory the Divine, but this [...]ref. p. 17. Story told right, will show him [...]o be no very passing Example in this case. Gregory was Bi­shop of Nazianzum, *At least a Co [...] [...]utor to his Father. [...]id vales [...] Not. ad [...]5. Cap 7. Socratis. and thence translated to Constantinople; Many ‖ [...]. So­ [...]rates H [...]st. Eccles. [...]5, 6, 7. ved etiam [...]om. C. 6. l. 7. murmured at this promo­tion, and indeed Tran­slations were not then thought as Innocent as they are now. The great Eusebius of Cae­sarea had not very long before refused the Throne of Antioch, when offer'd to him: He pleaded, that he could not leave his old Charge without break­ing the Apostolical Canons, vid. Euseb. de vita Constantini l. 3. C. 59, 60, 61, 62. & violating his first Faith. His excuse was accepted, and the Hone­sty of it very much commended by Con­stantine the Great, who loved him very well, and desired his promotion. Euse­bius of Nicomedia is cen­sur'd as a Breaker of the Th [...]odorit. Eccles. Hist. [...]. [...]. C. 9. Ecclesiastical Constitution for leaving his own See, and stepping in­to the Throne of Constantinople. And Theodorit in the second Book of his Eccle­siastical History, Cap. 31. tells us the Arrians were the chief promoters of Tran­slations; and bitterly repro [...]ches them for transferring Bishops from one City to another. His case standing thus, and his Interest at Court being little, Gregory did not think vid. vitam Greg. [...] p. 27. it worth while to struggle for a Seat, in which he found he should be briskly op­pos'd, and poorly defended: and there­fore he resigned. Nectarius an Honourable person, and Socrat. Hist. Eccles. l. 5. C. 8. a Man of great worth was chosen in his room, with him Gregory com­municates; and why should he not since he had resigned? He writes to him, and gives him honourable titles, and is this so wonderful a Condescention in Gregory when Nectarius was a greater Bishop, and a Man Superior to Himself? Nectarius had done Gregory no injury, he neither sought his Throne, nor accepted it till duly vacant by his Resignation: why then should Gregory be angry? But some Men have reason to wonder at others who are civil and do their duty. The last is drawn from that Council which Dionysius of Alexan­dria gives Novatian to forgo his pretence to the Roman Chaire: Pref. p. 8. And this I must confess is very judicious­ly apply'd. For Novatian unless my Eusebius very vid. Euseb. Hifl. Eccl. l. 6. C. 43, & 45. much deceives me, was the Intruder, and stept into the Roman Throne before Cornelius the rightful Bi­shop was willing to go out of it.

I had almost forgot St Chrysostom, and it had been well for the Editor if I had. He seems to be in love PrSf. p. 4. with the Story, and flourishes more upon it, than upon any of the Rest. But he has not consider'd that St Chrysostom never offer'd to vid. the Case of Chrysostom in the Treatise. resign. That great Man knew well enough his Enemys sought his Life, they had accus'd him of Treason, and he expected to lose, his Head publickly, or to be murder'd privately by those who were to carry him into Banishment; and therefore expecting Death, he desires his [Page 5] Brethren the Bishops, to communicate with his Orthodox Successor, and enjoyns the Widows to submit. Observe his own words. I have fought a good Fight, my end is nigh, and my Race is finished. But to the last moment of his Life he never sate quiet under that unjust Sentence which de­posed him. Many Bishops stook close to him, the Widows, Virgins, and People of Constantinople could not be forced by Fines, Whippings, and Imprisonments, to for­sake him, and communicate with the o­ther party, And he himself made Appli­cations to the Bishops of Rome, Milan, and Aquileia to stand his Friends, and to re­store him to his Throne: If this be an Ex­ample of Submission, let the Editor apply it, and try whether it will not fit the stiffest of the present Age.

You must forgive me, if I do not take much notice of the Description of a Schis­matick, which the Editor gives out of Irenaeus: 'tis too rude in the Ap­plication. Can any of the De­throned Pref. p. 9. Bishops be supposed to have an eye upon Ʋtilitatum & Res Medicas, Wealth and Prosit? Take a view of them in the Tower, and there you will find them ex­posing not only their Estates but Lives too for the good of the Church.

I should here leave the Editor, and pro­ceed to the Treatise, but that you think it necessary to pay Cou [...]sel with Advice, and therefore I must beg the Editor, whenso­ever he ventures to write again, to use Civil and respectful Expressi [...]ns when he speaks of his Superiours, Bishops by title and by merit; and to remember that the Ne­thenims were never permitted to bring rott [...]n wood, or dirty water into the Sanctuary. Not to make Speeches for St Chrysostom, or any Orator of his rank, and not to consult references and quotations shown him by his Friends, but to read Books, and compare the several passages in them, and then I am sure we shall hear less of his Examples.

The Pamphlet pretends, that the Church never troubled her self a­bout the Promotion of a Bi­shop, Answer to the M. S nor his Right to the Throne he fill'd; but communicated with him who was in possession of the See (provided he was Orthodox) though another had been vio­lently and unjustly thrust out of it; and had not resigned his right to the Seat, and was still alive: This practice it doth not attempt to justifie, by any Principles drawn from Scripture, the Ancient Canons or Customs of the Church; nor the Wri­tings of the three first Ages, but only cites some few examples from the third to the thirteenth Century, and then concludes as triumphantly, as if it had given the ful­lest demonstration in the world.

Now, Sir, you know this bare telling of Storys is the meanest way of arguing, the work of memory only, and to be ma­naged without though [...]; 'tis likewise of very little force, because we ought to be privy to all the Circumstances, and certain of the Integrity of the Man, whose Pra­ctice is brought to justify it self: We should be sure that neither fear, nor In­terest, nor any other motive sw [...]y'd him in the least, and that he was well informed, duly consider'd, and did not act upon mistake. Now all this is not easily dis­cover'd, nor are the Best and wisest Men always in the right, nor Sincere all over. No action is good, imitable, or just [...]are­ly because done by such or such a Man; We must walk by Rule and not Example. Nor can you, I am sure, be insensible that this Treatise will justify the proceedings of an unjust viol [...]nt deposing Prince, as well [Page 6] as those of a complying communicating Cler­gy, because several of the Emperors which it mentions were better and wiser Men than many of the Bishops. And if Ex­amples when truly reported have so little force, what must those have that are partly feign'd, unfaithfully related, and will not reach the case for which they are pro­duced? 'tis certain they can have no in­fluence on the cause, but then they turn with a vengeance on the Collector of them, and sufficiently prove very lamentable defects in his judgment, or something worse.

The Pamphlet in its title excepts the case of St Chrysostom as not favour­able pag. 2. to his design, and yet begins with an account of that Excellent Bishop. It says Chrysostom (as well as St Basil) was ordained Deacon by Meletius, who had formerly been made Bishop of Sebastia by the Arrians, and was afterward trans­lated to the Throne of Antioch by the Suf­frages both of the Arrians and Orthodox. Eustathius the old Bishop of Anti­och, pag. 5. being then in Exile and alive. It adds that this Meletius thus ordained, and thus seated in the Throne of Antioch, was, because he was Orthodox, accepted by, and proved very beneficial to the Church. 'Tis true, Chrysostom was or­dained Deacon by Meletius, and Meletius made Bishop of Sebastia by such as were Arrians in their hearts, but not publick abetters of that Heresie. They were Hy­pocrites indeed, and under the specious pretence of reconciling differences, and making up the breaches of the Church, ad­vanc'd the project of a naked Gospel; such as Melitius, who was always Orthodox him­self, did not suspect to be unsound in the Faith; and such as at that time were not separated from the Communion of the Church; and therefore Melitius had no reason to refuse their ordination; and the Eustathians were too peevish to que­stion it afterward, and justly accounted guilty of the Schism that divided the Church of Antioch.

But that Eustathius (which is the main point) was alive when Meletius came to the See of Antioch, is false, as appears from Theodorit. Hist. Eccles. l. 3 C. 4. [...]. The Editor to support his Author, cites Socrates. l. 4. c. 14, and 15. and pag. 4. Sozomen l. 6. c. 13. who say Eustathius was recall'd from Banishment by the Emperor Jovian, and sent again into Ex­ile by Valens, and therefore was alive when Meletius was put into the Throne of Antioch in the time of Constantius. He professeth likewise that he cannot agree with Baronius and Valesius (no mean, nor unthinking Men) who take Socrates and Sozomen to be mistaken in the Story.

I must confess that Eustathius (as the Editor observes against Valesius (might have liv'd to the third pag. 4. Consulship of Valentinian and Valens, for then he had not been above ninety years of age; and therefore the Story of So­crates and Sozomen is not to be rejected on that Account. But is this the Argu­ment of Baronius, or doth Valesius pro­duce no other? Had he lookt into the Annals, An. 370. he would have found that Baronius thought it absurd to imagin that the Oxthodox Bishops, and Ca [...]ho­lick People of Antioch would have suffer'd Meletius or Paulinus to have sate in that Chaire, had Eustathius been alive: that 'tis incredible he should not rep [...]ire to Antioch, and appear in the Catholick Sy­nod at that time; and folly to fancy that Meletius and Paulinus would not have [Page 7] given place to him, and to put an end to the Schism in that Church; and Valesius proves from vid. Not. ad l. 4. c. 14. & 15. Hist. Eccles. Socratis. St Jerom that Eustathius of Antio h was buried at Trajanople in Thrace, to which place he was banished by Con­stantius (it should be Con­stantine) and therefore vid. Caves Hist. Lit. could not be that Eustathius who was ba­nished by Valens to Bizua in Thrace. But these are Arguments not very favorable to the Eduo 's designs, and therefore must be shuffled over, and concealed: So that we have a full Testimony of Theodorit, who wrote his History to supply the Defects, and vid. Vales [...]. pref. ad Hist. Theodorit. correct the mistakes of So­crates and Sozomen, and the Authority of St Jerom against a senseless surmise of one single Socrates, (for So­zomen transcribes him) vid. Vales. pref. ad Hist. Socratis and Sozomen. who was neither so accu­rate nor judicious as either of the other two. But to put this matter out of all doubt, I shall only desire it may be ob­served that the Orthodox never chose a Bishop in the room of one who was thrust out of his Throne, whilest he was alive, and therefore it cannot be suppos'd that the Orthodox of Antioch would have gi­ven their votes for Meletius, had Eusta­thius been in being; and consequently it must be concluded that Theodorit is in the right, because his account agrees with the Practice of the Church.

For the first thre [...] hundred years Dius and Germanius were the only Men who sate in anoth [...]r's Throne, but then Nar­cissus being under some dis­grace, had voluntarily vid. Euseb. lib. 6. cap. 9. and 10. with-drawn from Jerusa­lem, and no body knew where he was. The Flock was forsaken before they had provided for themselves. When the Bishops were martyr'd, new ones were quickly chosen in their room, but when they were banisht, or forc'd to fly, their Chairs were thought to be still full: And Dionysius the famous Bishop of Alexandria, who was banisht from his City, gives a very good reason for these different pro­ceedings of the Christians in his time, [...]. vid. Euseb. lib. 7. C. XI. And St Hilary in the next Age could tell Constantius, Episcopos ego sum licet in exilio perma­nens, & Ecclesiae adhuc per Hil. Liber. ad Con­stantinum. Presbyteros meos Commu­nionem distribuens. An unjust deprivation did not take away their right, though dri­ven from their Church, they kept their Character, and were Bishops still: The Churches of those Ages knew as well as St Chrysostom that it was neces­sary for them to be under Bi­shops, Pref. p. 5. but they never thought their obli­gations to their Pastors were cancelled, when they were depos'd by the Edict of an Emperor, and forced to be absent from their Charge.

To confirm these Assertions you may command a great many Instances from the Churches of France, Italy, Asia, Ae­gypt, and the like, at present I shall only send you one from Rome. Liberius was banisht by Constantius for refusing to con­sent to Athanasius's depo­sition, and a perjured par­ty vid. pref. ad Libel­lum p [...]um [...]austini & [...]a [...]cellini. of the Roman Clergy, put one Felix in his Room, who was Orthodox himself, but be­ing a Latitudinaian Re­conciler, vid. Socrat. lib 2. c. 37. & Soz [...]. l. 4. c. 11. Theodorit. l. 2. c. 17. and a Trimmer in his practice communi­cated with the Arri [...]s: The sober▪ pious [Page 8] Catholicks of Rome with-drew from his Communion; and made application to Constantiu [...], for their restoration of their old Bishop: partly indeed because Felix communicated with the Arrians, but chiefly because [...] there Theodorit. lib. 2. c. 17. was but one God, one Christ, and one Bishop.

The Pamphlet pretends farther that the Ordinations of Arsacius (who upon the unjust deposition of St pag. 5. Chrys [...]s [...]om, was put into the Throne of Consta [...]tinople) were never question'd, and yet owns that we are not certain he made any. And then adds that At­ticus, who succeeded Arsacius in that See, whilst Chrysostom was in Exile and alive, was own'd and accepted by the Church, and commended by Pope pag. 6. Celestine: that Sisinnius the Successor of Atticus was consecrated by those whom Atticus ordained, that the third ge­neral Council of Ephesus took no pag. 6. notice of any of these proceedings, and in the following paragraph goes on to shew that Maximiniam and Proclus the succeeding Bishops of Constanti­nople pag. 9. deriv'd their ordination from the same hands; that St Cyril communicated with them, and that Innocent of Rome did not prosecute Severianus of Gabala nor Acacius of Berraea, though he knew them to be the chief contrivers of all these In­jurys, which St Chrysostom suffer'd. Here is a great deal of History, but to what purpose? our question is not whether the Ordinations of Intruders are good and valid (even those of Schismaticks and He­ [...]cks have been frequently admitted) [...] whether the Church might not own [...] after the death of the injur'd [...] whether every Bishop is bound to prosecute those who have done Injury [...] to others: But whether the Church has received, and communicated with such as have stept into other mens Seats whilst they were alive, and had not resigned their right. To this point the Author should have spoken, he should have shown that Arsacius or Atticus was received and own­ed by the Church whilst Chrysostom was in Exile; but since that could not be done, as will appear from the following Ab­stract taken out of the Life of St Chry­sostom, written by Palladius, the Question was to be changed, and the dispute shussled.

St Chrysostom, Bishop of Constantinople, was a man of a severe temper (p. 45.) vehemently against the Vices of the great, and therefore not very acceptable at Court (p. 35.) Theophilus of Alexan­dria a bold insinuating fellow, having some disgust to him (p. 44.) under­takes the quarrel of the Court, proceeds against all Rules and Canons, gathers a packt Synod, condemns and deprives Chrysostom without hearing his defence (p. 74.) when Chrysostom was summond by the Emperor to appear before Theophi­lus, he had forty Bishops with him, of which number seven were Metropolitans (p. 67. and 69.) and to these he spoke words, which the Editor has quoted in his Preface. He charges them not to leave their Churches, but communicate with his Orthodox Successor, for He ex­pected death (p. 67.) it being the pub­lick report that He should lose his Head. (p. 68.) After this deprivation he was restored, and kept his Seat some time; till Theophilus's party grew strong, and condemn'd him again; and to put this Sentence in Execution, Theophilus gets a Warrant from Court, sends the Sheriff [Page 9] (p. 19. and 75.) with his Pass to drive him out of his Palace and Church too. And (p. 26.) engages the Emperor to de­prive and confiscate the Estates of all those Bishops who should refuse to com­municate with Arsacius, who was put in­to the Chair of St John, and to seize up­on the House of any Man who harbor'd any Priest that communicated with John. The Honourable Deaconsses of Constanti­nople were Fin [...]d, the Virgins whipt, and the Monks tortur'd, yet still Arsacius was refused. Arsacius living but fourteen months, Atticus succeeds him, (p. 94.) with whom none of the Bishops, nor the People of Constantinople would communicate (pag. 95.) He procures Edicts to force them, (p. 95.) some were prevailed on by Benefices and Bribes, but abundance of Rich and Noble Persons fled (p. 95.) many Bishops suffer'd depriva­tion (p. 194.) and notwithstanding the severe Laws, more of the People of Con­stantinople separated from Atticus than joyned with him (p. 96. and 149.) In the mean time St John makes application to the Bishops of the West, to Innocent of Rome (p. 10.) Chromatius of Aquilea and Venerius of Milan (p. 22, and 23.) desi­ring them to interpose and do him right. Many Bishops and Presbyters made the same addresses for St John (p. 28.) Inno­cent offers to communicate with Theophi­lus and Chrysostom till the cause should be determined (p. 23.) but Theophilus decli­ning a review of his proceedings, Inno­cent by the advice of an Italian Synod, re­quests the Emperor Honorius to write to his Brother Arcadius to summon a Council, that it might be known with whom they should communicate (p. 30.) The five Bishops who carried the Em­peror's Letters, refused to communicate with Atticus (p. 33.) Palladius glorys in his refusal (p. 214.) and tells us, p. 214. that a Western Synod had determin'd not to communicate with the Intruders, nor with those who joyn'd with them. 'Tis needless to comment upon this History, for when the deliberate determinations of whole Churches, the resolutions of Chry­sostom, and the best Men of the Age are on one side; and the violence only and fury of a desperate faction on the other, 'tis easy to determine which ought to be preferr'd

The next Instance is less to the pur­pose, but as unfaithfully reported as the former. It says Dioscorus of Alex­andria openly favoring Eutyches pag. 10. his Heresy, condemn'd, despos'd, and mur­thered Flavian the Orthodox Bishop of Constantinople, and ordained Anatolius in his Room, yet the fourth general Council did not depose Anatolius, nor censure Ju­venal of Jerusalem, nor the rest who joyn­ed with Dioscorus in deposing Flavian. But did not the Council of Chalcedon call Juvenal of Jerusalem, Basil of Selucia and the Rest to an Account for their proceed­ings against Flavian? And did not they plead for their Baronius An. 449. excuse that Dioscorus had put a guard up­on them, that they were beaten by the Souldiers, and almost famished: that they were under the greatest Terror, Swords being at their Throats, and Chains brought into the Room, and that they subscribed his deposition against Their Conscience and out of fear? That they heartily repented for what they had done, and beg'd pardon both of God and Man? If any one denys this, the Acts of the Council at Chal­cedon Council tom. 4. p. 111. will sufficiently con­fute him, and Evagrius will Evagri. Hist. Ec­cles. l. 2. c. 4. and Baronius An. 451. prove that a sentence of de­position was drawn against them all, and that their Restoration was [Page 10] lookt upon as a kindness and favor from Pope Leo. [...]. As for Anatolius himself, the Council had no reason to deprive Him, for those that ordain'd him were not de­clared Hereticks, nor seperated from the Church; He was Orthodox himself, and put into the Throne of Constantinople be­fore the death of Flavi­anus: for Flavianus was Baronius tom. 6. p. 100. murdered not long (Niaphorus says with­in a few days) after his deposition, and the Niaphorus l. 14. c. 47. Pamphlet it self says Dioscorus was a Murderer before he ordained pag. 10. Anatolius. Leo received Him when he found Baronius An. 451. him Orthodox, and ne­ver quarrell'd at this or­dination of Anatolius Baronius An. 452. compared with Leo's Epistles to Anatolius, Martian & Pulcheria in the 4th Tome of the Councils, p. 843. 846. and 848. till he began to dispute with Him about the Pri­viledges of our See.

The Pamphlet goes on to the Reign of Anastasius, and says the Empecor depriv'd three pa. 13. An. 495. Patriarchs, Euphemius, Macedonius, and Timotheus, because they would not Sub­scribe his Heretical Opinions. These three did not refuse one anothers Commu­nion; and Elias of Jerusalem did com­municate with all three. [This was the Emperor's accusation, tho' false.] Now this Story should run thus, Theodorus Lect [...]r p. 559. Metaphrastes, The­ophanes, and Cedrenus and others call him Eu­thymius, and therefore all Historians do not call him Euphemius, as the Editor asserts, p. 13. vid. Cotelerii. Not. ad 3. tom. Mon. Graec. p. 599. Euphemius betray'd the secrets of the Em­peror, and kept cor­respondence with his Enemys. The Empe­ror calls a Synod, and Euphemius was de­pos'd, so that he was not thrust out by the Emperor, but regurlarly displaced. Yet the People of Constantinople rais'd tumults, and could scarce be perswaded to forsake him; Macedonius succeeds him, with whom Euphemius did not so well agree as the Pamphlet pretends; Euphe­mius indeed made use of him upon a civil occasion, and by his means procured a safe conduct from the Emperor; but when they were to meet, Macedonius put off his Theodorus Lector, p. 560. and Not. Vales [...]i. in locum. Patriarchal Badge, other­wise probably Euphemius would have re­fus'd even that Civil kindness at his Hands.

Some time after Anastasius A. D. 510. expelled Macedonius if we believe Libe­ratus, for falsifying the Scriptures and being a Lib. Diac. Breviar. Council tom. 5. l. 19. Nestorian, but as the common and true Story goes for refu­sing to condemn the Council of Chalcedon: Timotheus succeeds Him, a Man very in­famous and Heretical, and therefore it cannot Theodorus Lector, p. 563, and 564. be thought Macedonius would communicate with Him, since so many of Constantinople suffer'd for refusing his Baronius An. 510, 511. Communion, and re­bell'd Marcellini Chronicon. against the Emperor who would force them to it. This Timotheus was not expell'd by Anastasius, as the Pamphlet pretends: He dy'd in his Throne, and was succeeded by John. [...]. Cyril. Schythop. vit. Sabae. p. 320. p. 296, and 297. Indeed Elias of Jerusalem is said to have accepted Syno­dical Epistles both from Macedonius and Timothy, and I believe he did from Ma­cedonius, but Cyril's legend's too weak an Authority to perswade any Man that he entertained any correspondence with the infamous and Heretical Timotheus: He [Page 11] was to make all the friends he could to put a stop to prevailing Heresy, and 'tis no wonder if to secure the Faith of the Church, Crimes of lesser moment were overlookt.

The same Anastasius, says the Pamph­let, expel'd Elias of Jerusalem, and put John into his Throne, yet pag. 14. Elias did not with-draw from his Com­munion, and Theodorus and Sabas, the mighty Monks of that time, communica­ted with Elias, and John too; and the names of Elias and John were both put into the Diptychs of Jerusalem: and for all this it quotes the Life of Sabas written by Cyril of Scythopolis. Now the legend of Cyril runs thus: Elias was driven from Jerusalem by force, and John who had promis'd to Anathematize the Council of Chalcedon was put into his Room: (p. 310.) John being perswaded by Sabas breaks his promise, and the Emperor sends the Go­vernor of Palestine to force John to keep his word, or leave his Throne. He seizes John and puts him into Prison, and all the People of Jerusalem reject [...]: (p. 311.) John again gives his word to do at he had promis'd, but in the mean time gathers 10000 Monks about him (p. 312.) and getting into the Pulpit with Theodo­rus and Sabas, the Ringleaders of those Monks, anathematized all those who did not receive the Council of Chalcedon, and confirm'd that Synod (p. 312.) The Go­vernor was forc'd to fly for his Life, and Hypatius, the Emperor's Nephew, was glad to purchase his with many Oaths, and a round sum of Money.

The Emperor resenting this affront, resolv'd to banish John and Theodosius, and Sabas: but the Monks got together again; wrote a remonstrance to the Emperor, in which they call John [...] (p. 319.) and boldly tell Him they would sooner lose their Lives, and burn their Churches, than suffer his Heresy to be set up in them. Thus this matter end­ed. And sure Men must be at a strange loss who would take Examples from such wretched irregular proceedings.

For the next instance the Pam­phlet sends us to the Life of A­thanasius, pag. 14. and says we may read there how Acacius unjustly depriv'd Maximus Bishop of Jerusalem, and put Cyril in his Room, one who was then chief of the Arrian par­ty, but afterward becoming Orthodox he was willingly received, and allow'd as Patriarch by the Church: and Maximus himself did not with-draw from his Com­munion; whereas all that I can find about Maximus vid. Vit. Athanasij. p. 48. and Cyril in that Trea­tise are these words. [...]. Acacius threw out Maxi­mus, and established Cyril, who was Zea­lous for Heresy, as Maximus for true Faith. Not one word of Maximus's communica­ting with Cyril, nor can it be suppos'd so glorious a Confessor as Maximus would have any thing to do with one of such a Character. Besides, Sir, this whole story depends on the single Authority of So­crates, who says Acacius and Patrophilus having driven Maximus out of his Throne put Cyril in his Room. But Theodorit is positive that Cyril succeeded upon the death of Maximus: [...]. And the Councils at Constantinople Synodical Epistle says Cyril was ca­nonically ordain'd: [...]. Theodorit Eccles. Hist. l. 5. c. 9. Yet after all this I must refer you [Page 12] to Baronius, where you will find the succession in the Throne of Tom. 3. p. 658. Jerusalem to be very confus'd, St Jerom says four Cyrils succeeded one another, Epiphanius says two, but both affirm Maximus was dead before any took the Chair: so that the Pamphlet, besides its dis­honesty in quoting the Life of Athanasius, for what is not there, and its heedlesness in following Socrates against better Au­thors, is guilty of a most Scandalous blun­der, in confounding the Cyrils, and ma­king the little Arian Cyril the same with him who was call'd the Holy and the Great. The following Storys about Anthymus, and the four Mo­nothelite p. 17. An. D. 552. Patriarchs are nothing to the pur­pose; but that concerning Eutychius ( [...], not ex Amasia oriundus as the E­ditor imagins. Evagrius only says, [...] Monachus Amasiae, and vid. Evag. l. 4. c. 38. Noris Dissert. de quinta Synodo p. 51.) would come up to the point, if it were true. To make short work I shall grant part of the story, and suppose Eutychius to have been a good Man, and unjustly expelled. (The learned Dr Crackanthorp endeavors to vindicate Justi­nian, and prove Eutychius a O [...] the 5th Synod, p. 340. Heretick, and in the time of Justinian infected with those idle whimsies which he afterwards profess'd;) but of his uneasiness under his sentence we shall find a considerable proof in the legend of Eustathius: for after John was set in the Throne, when Eutychius was summon'd to the Conventicle gather'd at Constanti­nople on purpose to depose him, he cry'd out, Patriarcha ego sum De gratia, nec a Me quisquam Eustathio Baro­nius tom. 7. p. 534. and p. 615. Hominum tollet hanc Dignita­tem: Quis est ille qu [...]m meo in loco collocastis? And where doth it appear he communi­cated with John? Indeed 'tis certain he did not, for John; as he was a vain ambi­tious Man, a servile Flat­terer of the great, and Baronius tom. 7. p. 534. greedy of Preferment, so undoubtedly he subscribed to those wild Opinions, which Justinian propagated with so much Zeal, and for opposing which [...]t is said Eutychius lost his Throne. And Justinian was so sensible of Niaphorus Hist. Eccles. l. 17. c 29. and 30. the Injury he had done him, and of his right to the Chair of Con­stantinople, that as one affirms, upon his death Niaphorus Hist. Eccles. l. 17. c. 30. Bed he order'd his Succes­sor Justin to restore him, which was presently done; for Nia­phorus Patriarch of Constan­tinople, vid. Crackanthorp of the first Synod. p. 340. says John sate but two Years; and Paulus Diaconus says Eutychius crowned Iustin. John dy'd in very conveni­ent Hist. Mix. l. 16. p. 29. time, just as Eutychius was to be restored, or else perhaps he might have been an Example on the other side, and we should have met with a Pa­triarch dethroned as an Intruder. I know other Historians put off John's death, and Eutychius's Restoration to the 9th or 10th year of Justin, but they are Men of little credit, and Of the fifth Synod p. 340. Crackanthorp has confuted them already.

Now we are fallen into the dregs of time, years of Superstition, Idolatry, Do­tage, and Disorder; And therefore tho' the Instances produc'd out of this Age were truly reported, and pertinent to the Purpose, they would be fit Examples for us to follow. But the Collector is still the same Man, and trifles, and falsi­fies in these as much as in the for­mer.

[Page 13] Callinicus affisted Leontius, & encou­raged the People to dethrone Justi­nian, p. 18. A. D. 703. cut off his Nose and banish him: He appear'd at the Convention sum­moned Platina vit. S [...]rgil. primi. by Leontius, and urged them on to their loyal and Religious work, by telling them this was the Day the Pauli Diaconi. Hist. Miscel. l. 19. c. 30. Lord bad made. Justinian recover­ing his Throne again, used Callini­cus as he did the other Rebels, put out his Eyes, and banisht him, and Pauli Diaconi. Hist. Miscel. l. 20. c. 9. placed Cyrus in his Room. The Collector says Callinicius did not re­fuse to communicate with Cyrus; but that is more than he knows; the Histories speak nothing of the matter. Callinicus might refuse, and no body take notice of it; for who would regard the Actions of a poor blind Creature, without worth, and without friends, and who was sent to Rome to beg his Bread of a proud haugh­ty Baronius A. D. 703. Pope, whom he had very much offended.

John the next depos'd Patriarch was a Heretick, (as the Editor him­self vid. Baronium. An. 712. pag. 18. seems willing to grant upon the Authority of Zonaras and Nicephorus Callisti) and [...]ermanus was not de­pos'd An. D. 730. vid. Paul. Diacon. Misc [...]l. Hist. l. 21. c. 26. by Leo Isaurus, but resign'd his Bishoprick. I know Damascen, Constantine, the Eastern Synodical Epistle to Theaphilus, and others, say he was deposed; but those pas­sionate vid. Spanhem. Hist. Imag. Sect. 2. num. 12. Doters upon Images de­serve little credit when they plead their own Cause, and declaim against those Empe­rors who threw down Images, and would not let them be Idolaters. God has given them over to believe a Lye, and the Men of that party are as in­sincere Writers, as the Author I am now considering. But suppose Germanus was depos'd, is not Idolatry a sufficient Cause for Deposition? And is not a wor­shipper of Images justly Banisht from the Church?

The following long Story about Tarasius and others, is altogether impertinent: for what if Tarasius for fear of losing his pag. 21. pretty Pictures, did not do his duty, and Excom­municate Joseph for his villanous compliance with the Emperor Corstantine? What though Theodorus resus'd to communicate with Tarasius whilst he kept Joseph in the Church? What though Irene (that admirable Empress) lookt upon Theodorus to be in honest blunt Man, and Tarasius to be a Courtier? What though upon Joseph's deprivation, Theodorus & Tarasius were reconciled? And what though Nice­phorus the succeeding Patriarch at the instance of the Emperor recelv'd Joseph again, and Theodorus with drew again, and those two were again recon­ciled upon Joseph's second deprivation? What though Theodorus retracted all the Reproaches he had thrown out against Tarasius and Nicephorus? What though the Monks of Studium were condem­ned by Methodius for persisting in their separa­tion; and some body says, that Theodorus did not well in separating from Tarasius and Nic [...]phorus, and that afterwards he corrected himself, and made amends for his unjustifiable proceedings? What I say (suppose the whole Story true) doth all this prove? Doth it show, that a Bishop unjustly deprived, communicates with his Orthodox Succes­sor? There is not one word of any one's depriva­tion, but Joseph's; and he was neither a Bishop, nor unjustly punished. And yet the Collector has the Confidence to say (p. 30.) [...], &c. This is the scope and design of the Histories here produc't, to show that not one of all those Patriarchs that were Ʋnjustly and Ʋncanonically thrust out of their proper Sees, did ever with-draw himself from the Communion of his Suc­cessor, or perswade the People to separate from the Church, but that both they and their People continued in Communion, provided their Successors were Orthodox.

Of the next Story I am willing to believe as much as I can find true. An. D. 861. I will allow Ignatius was thrown out of his Seat by Michael, for reproving and Excommunicating the Incestous vid. Baronium An. 861. N. 28. and 31. Bardas, as Ignatius himself relates the Story to Pope Nicholas. I will likewise grant that Ignatius was restor'd and Photius deprived (there an Intruder is turn'd out) and that Photius replaced in the Throne after Ignatius was dead: But that Photius was lookt upon to be an Adulterer. and Usurper of the Throne (which this Collector questions,) and that pag. 29. [...] Ignatius refus'd to communicate with him (which he denys,) is very evident pag. 30. [...] from the best Records of that Age: Ignatius in the account of his Case which he sent to Pope Nicholas, calls Photius, Adulterer and Intruder, Adulterum & Intrusum Photium. Baronius A. D. 861. N. 311. and An. 886. N. 23. He declined the sentence of the Pope's Legats, because they did not reject, but eat with and received Presents from that Adulterer Photius. And (not to trouble yo [...] with a thousand other Records) Pope Nicholas by himself, and in conjunction with the Roman Synod, resuses his Communion, and deposes him too, be­cause he had been ordain'd by Gregory of Syracuse. [Page 14] an excommunicated Bishop; usurp'd another's Right, and got into the Throne of Constantinople whilst Ignatius was alive: Vivente ac Superstite Con­sacerdote Baronius An. D. 862. Num. 5. Ignatlo, sedent ejus invasit, & Sponsam, violen­tus rapax & Sceleratus A­dulter. Baronius A. 859. N. 57, and 59. Several Bishops and others stuck to Ignatius, and would not communicate with Photius; and Ig­natius was so far from communicating with him, that he lay very hard upon all that did so, suspended vid. Daronium An. 867. N. 101. & passim. Photius himself, and all that were ordain'd or com­municated with him, and was for inflicting upon them all the higest Censures of the Church.

By this time I believe you begin to stand amaz'd [...] the confident Ignorance of this disingenuous Scri [...], who produceth the Example of Ignatius, and is positive that he never refus'd to communicate with Photius; nor indeed could he have pitcht upon an Instance, which will more effectually ruin his whole design than this. For Ignatius was depos'd by the Constantinopolitan Synod under Photius, be­cause, as they pretended, he was not canonically ordained; nor did ever a greater Schism follow any Bishop's deprivation. Pag. 29. But the Collector cannot believe that Photius, had he been thrust out as an Usurper, would have been replac'd in the same Throne: His Infi­delity proceeds from Ignorance, for any Man who knows the time, and Men of the Age, will never ad­mire at any strange and irregular proceedings in it.

Before I go to the next Instance, I must advertise the Editor of his mi­stake about the Synodicon. Pag. 14. Edict. English. For the Synodicon was not, as he imagins, the Decree made against the Icono­machi, by the Synod at Constantinopl-under Michael and Theodora. A. D. 842. appointed to be read in the Greek Churches every Year upon the first Sunday vid. Anastasiu [...]: Caesar. de Jejunio Deipare a­pud Cotelerii Mon. Graec. tom. 3. p. 435. in Lent, but the Book com­posed A. D. 920. in the Reigns of Constantine and Romanus; it contained three Compare Anast Cae­sar. apud Cotelerii 3. tom. Mon. rae. p. 432. with Baronius An. 921. N. 1, and 3. Synods, two about Faith, and the third about Mar­riages, and was to be read every Year in July: This Edict was made to lclose up the Divisions, and heal the breaches of the Church, and particularly to put an end to that Schism, which follow'd Ni­cholas's deprivation: for An. D. 901. many adhered to him, & re­jected Euthymius whom the Constantinus Porphy­rogenitus Praef. ad E­dict. Ʋnionis apud Ba­ronium An. 901. N. 6. and Curopalates apud eundem, An. 911. N. 18. Emperor put into his room; and the succeeding Empe­ror restor'd Nicholas and expel'd Euthymius, who was barbarously us [...]d as an In­truder: Adulterum vocabant ut qui ad alienam uxorem in­gressus esset, nempe Nicolai Ecclesiam acoepisset: This is a full demonstration that Nicholas and his party did not communicate with Eu­thymius, that there was a Schism fol­lowed Page 33. his deprivation, and that this Story-teller cannot speak Truth. The Edict of Ʋnion was a kind of an Act of Oblivion, all Irregu­larites were to be forgotten, and all Persons, how­ever culpable, to be lookt upon as faultless and re­gular; and he that will thence inser (as the Col­lector pretends to do) that there were no Schisms in the Church, upon the unjust deprivation of one Bishop, and the intrusion of another, and that the Intruder's Communion was not still avoided, may as well prove that we had no Civil Wars, because twenty Years after an Act of Indempnity set all right again, and forbad the Loyalists and Rebels to reproach or speak ill of one another: So that Pho­tius, whilst Ignatius was alive, and Stephen and Anthony, whilst Photius was alive, were lookt upon to be Intruders; till a great many Years after Peace was to be established, and the many Schisms their Irregularities had caused, were to be healed up.

Of Cosmus Atticus, who was depriv'd by Michael, P. 33. A. D. 1146. Story speaks very little; yet had the Author given us all that Chroniates says concern­ing vid. Nic. Chroniatem de Man. Comneno l. 2. Sect. 3. him, he would have lost one Instance, though he would have shew'd himself honest, but to falsify and misrepresent is the peculiar Talent of this Author. Cosmus being under the Emperor's dis­pleasure, was charg'd with Conspiracies against the Emperor, and with some very odd Opinions started by one Nepho a Monk: The Emperor calls a Synod, and Gosmus is convicted and depriv'd: Cosmus curses the Empress, excommunicates some of the Nobles, and bitterly rails at the Council for [Page 15] deposing him: By this temper and carriage, any one may conclude he was not very quiet after his Deposition, but we hear no more of him; and Baronius says, he dy'd pre­sently A. D. 1147. Num. 32. after his Deposition.

The last Story is not worth examining; and now, Sir, pray reflect a little: This is R. B's ex­cellent Tract, in which there are not two words to the purpose, nor one of Truth. This is that An­tiquity which we admire the 6th, 7th, 8th and fol­lowing Ages, the great disgraces of Christianity; and which should always be forgotten.

The Canons being part of the M. S. not published by the Editor of the Greek and Latin, nor in the English Edition.

IF any Presbyter despising his own Bishop, gathers a separate Congregation, and raiseth another Altar, having nothing to object against the Faith or Piety of his Bishop, let him be depos'd as Ab­bitious and Turbulent. Let all the Clergy that adhere to him lie under the same Censures: and the the Lay-Men be excommunicated. But let the first, second, and third Admonition of the Bishop precede this Sentence, Canon. Apost. 31.

If any gathers a Congregation separate from the Church, and despising the Church shall presume to do what belongs to the Church without the Bishop, or a Preshyter Licens'd by the Bishop, let him be an Anathema; Concil. Gang. Can. 7th.

If any Presbyter or Deacon despising his own Bi­shop, separates from the Church, gathers a private Congregation, and sets up an Altar, and refuseth to submit to his Bishop after the first and second Ad­monition, let him be depriv'd, and for ever made incapable of officiating again: And if he continues factious, and raiseth disturbances in the Church, let the Secular power take hold of him, as a Sedi­tious breaker of the Peace. Synod. Antioch. Canon. 5th.

If any Bishop be accus'd before all the Bishops of the same Province, and they all agree in their Sen­tence against Him, let not his Cause be reheard by any other, but let the unanimous Sentence of all the Bishops of the Province stand good. Can. 15th.

If any Presbyter puft up with Pride against his own Bishop makes a Schism, let him be Anathema, Concil. Carth Can. 10.

The Devil having scatter'd Heretical Tares in [...]he Church, and sinding the Sword of the Spirit has cut them up by the Roots, falls upon another de­vice, and endeavours to divide the Body of Christ by the madness of Schismaticks. To bassle this con­trivance the holy Synod decrees; If any Presbyter or Deacon shall presume upon pretence that his Bishop is guilty of great misdemeanors to withdraw from his communion before his Cause has been exa­min'd & determin'd by a Synod, and not mention his Name in publick Prayers according to the Custom of the Church; let him be depriv'd and degraded: For he that is a bare Presbyter, and pretends to the power of the Metropolitans, and as far as in him lies condemns his own Father and Bishop, before they have given sentence is unworthy both the name and dignity of a Presbyter; let the Clergy who joyn with him be under the same Censures, and the Monks and Lay-Men stand excommunicated, till they renounce the Schismaticks, and be recon­ciled to their own Bishop; Synod. dict. [...]. Ganon. 13.

If any Bishop upon pretence that his Metropo­litan is guilty of great Misdemeanors, shall separate from his Communion, and not mention his Name in publick Prayers according to custom, the Holy Synod declares him depriv'd upon being convicted of with-drawing from his Metropolitans Commu­nion, and making a Schism: for every Man should know his own bounds. A Presbyter must not de­spise his Bishop, nor a Bishop his Metropolitan. Synod. ejusd. Canon. 14.

If any Bishop or Metropolitan shall presume to with-draw from the Communion of his Patriarch, and not mention his Name in publick Prayers ac­cording to custom; but raises a Schism before a Synod has examin'd the Cause and given Sentence, the holy Synod declares him depriv'd upon Con­viction.

These Canons are made against those who divide from their Governors, upon pretence they are guilty of some Irregularitys and Misdemeanors: for those that separate from them when they open­ly profess, and teach any Heresy condemned by the holy Synods and Fathers of the Church, are not liable to the Censures of these Canons, if they with­draw from their Bishop before a Synod has ex­amin'd the Cause and given Sentence; but are to be lookt upon, and receiv'd as Orthodox. For they do not fly a Bishop but a false Bishop and a false Teacher: they do not break the Church's Unity by Schism; but endeavour to preserve the Church from Schisms and Divisions.

[Page 16] These are the Canons at the end of the Baroccian M. S. written in the same Hand, on the same Pa­per, and joyn'd in the same Page with the other part that is published: The reason why these were concealed is very evident: The Collector of the Storys was to be thought a Man of Ingenuity and Judgment, and 'tis certain that could not be, had this latter part been published together with the former: for who could think him to have ei­ther Modesty or Sense who writes a Treatise on purpose to prove that a Bishop, howsoever de­priv'd, whether by the Edict of a Senate, or a Prince, or plain force, is bound to communicate with him who is put in his place, provided he be Orthodox, and yet produces Canons which peremp­torily decree him a Schismatick, who separates ei­ther from his Bishop or Metropolitan, before a Synod has examin'd the Cause and given Sentence?

It Seems vid. Coteleri. Not. ad 3. Tom. Mon. Graec. p. 645. it is probable this was that Joseph who usurped the Throne of Arsenius the Pa­triarch of C. P. who was unjustly deposed by a time­serving Synod, called by the perjured Ʋsurper Michael palaeo­logus, who being constituted Guardi [...]n with the Patriarch of the young Prince, John Lascaris put out his Eyes, and usurped his Throne. Ʋpon this the Patriarchs Excommunicated him for his Perjury, & Ʋsurpation; and because he refused to absolve him, he called a Synod to depose him, and upon his deposition followed a great and long Schism in C. P. Se [...] the whole Story in Nicetas Gregoras. lib. 2, 3, 4▪ Jos [...]ph the Presbyter against whom these Storys were collected had made a Schism, and refused to communicate with one who was put into the Seat of a depriv'd Bishop, but then 'tis certain; from this part of the M. S. that Bishop who ever he was, depriv'd by a Synod; and had R. B. known this, doubtless he would have given another account of this Treatise, than he has done in his Preface.

There are a great many other faults in the M. S. which I forbear to mention being, willing to make an End. Then shall only add that it gives no great credit to a cause to see Men of parts and learning lay such mighty stress on such crude false undisgested a Paper.

The Truth is, with due respect to Mr H. S. Curios [...] ▪ and Mr B's. Observation; the discovery is so far from being extraordinary or Miraculous, that I rather wonder some ignorant Popish Priest upon the bare reading the Latin Title of it, in the Catalogue of the Baroccian M. S. which runs thus, Exampla ex Historiis Ecclesiasticis [...]orum qui pr [...]t [...]r, Canon [...]s ad thronum P [...]triarchalem evecti sunt, viven­tibus adhuc l [...]gitimis Patriarchis, had not without farther consideration some years since produced the same, as an Apology for submittion to the late Ecclesiastical Commissioners, whose powers were to deprive as well as suspend. What sence the London Clergy would then have given of this M. S. their own Conscience can best tell, and most will think it easy to imagine; at least there would have been no occasion for the present labour of

Your Humble Servant,

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.