excommunicated Bishop usurp'd another's Right and got into the Throne of Constantinople whilst Ignatius was alive Vivente ac Superstite Consacerdote Ignatlo sedent ejus invasit Sponsam violentus rapax Sceleratus Adulter 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 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 â—â— the confident Ignorance of this disingenuous Scriâ—â—â—â— 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 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 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 in Lent but the Book composed A. D. 920. in the Reigns of Constantine and Romanus it contained three 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 many adhered to him rejected Euthymius whom the Emperor put into his room and the succeeding Emperor restor'd Nicholas and expel'd Euthymius who was barbarously usâ—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 his deprivation and that this Story-teller cannot speak Truth The Edict of Vnion 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 Story speaks very little yet had the Author given us all that Chroniates says concerning 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 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 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 â—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 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 't is 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 Josâ—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 't is 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. Curiosâ—â—â— 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 â—orum qui prâ—tâ—r Canonâ—s ad thronum Pâ—triarchalem evecti sunt viventibus adhuc lâ—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 Sir Your Humble Servant FINIS * Pref. p. 1. * vid Beram Not. ad Act. Apost C. 1. v. 13. Casabonum Exercit. 1. Sect. 17. * Pref. p. 1. Pref. p. 1. â—â—d p. 8. 9. 10. of the Latin G. â—ditiâ—on Pref. p. 2. vid. Coteleri Not. in 3d Tom. Men. Grac. p. 645. compared with p. 25. lin 14. of the G. L. Edition Pref. p. 3. Pref. p. 8. Sect. 54. Edit Oxon. Pref. p. 6. Passim in Coll. Caâ—tâ—ag tom 2. Counc and in Brericulo ejusdem Coll. inter op August tom 7. vid Council tom 2. p. 1346. Breviculum Coll. Carthag primae diei Sect. 5. inter Op. August tom 7. â—ref p. 17. At least a Coâ—dâ—utor to his Father â—id valesâ—â— Not. ad â—5 Cap 7. Socratis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Soâ—rates Hâ—st Eccles â—5 6 7. ved etiam â—â—om C. 6. l. 7. vid. Euseb de vita Constantini l. 3. C. 59 60 61 62. Thâ—odorit Eccles Hist â— â— C. 9. vid. vitam Greg. â—â—â—â— p. 27. Socrat. Hist Eccles l. 5. C. 8. Pref. p. 8. vid. Euseb Hifl Eccl. l. 6. C. 43 45. PrSf p. 4. vid. the Case of Chrysostom in the Treatise Pref. p. 9. Answer to the M. S pag. 2. pag. 5. pag. 4. pag. 4. vid. Not. ad l. 4. c. 14. 15. Hist Eccles Socratis vid. Caves Hist Lit. vid. Valesâ— pref ad Hist Theodorit vid. Vales pref ad Hist Socratis and Sozomen vid. Euseb lib. 6. cap. 9. and 10. vid. Euseb lib. 7. C. XI Hil. Liber ad Constantinum Pref. p. 5. vid. pref ad Libellum pâ—â—â—um â—austini â—aâ—cellini vid. Socrat. lib 2. c. 37. Sozâ—â— l. 4. c. 11. Theodorit l. 2. c. 17. Theodorit lib. 2. c. 17. pag. 5. pag. 6. pag. 6. pag. 9. pag. 10. Baronius An. 449. Council tom 4. p. 111. Evagri Hist Eccles l. 2. c. 4. and Baronius An. 451. Baronius tom 6. p. 100. Niaphorus l. 14. c. 47. pag. 10. Baronius An. 451. * Baronius An. 452. compared with Leo's Epistles to Anatolius Martian Pulcheria in the 4th Tome of the Councils p. 843. 846. and 848. pa. 13. An. 495. ‖ Theodorus Lectâ—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. Theodorus Lector p. 560. and Not. Valesâ—i in locum A. D. 510. Lib. Diac. Breviar Council tom 5. l. 19. Theodorus Lector p. 563 and 564. Baronius An. 510 511. Marcellini Chronicon Cyril Schythop vit Sabae p. 320. p. 296 and 297. pag. 14. pag. 14. vid. Vit. Athanasij p. 48. Theodorit Eccles Hist l. 5. c. 9. Tom. 3. p. 658. p. 17. An. D. 552. Evag. l. 4. c. 38. Oâ— the 5 th Synod p. 340. Eustathio Baronius tom 7. p. 534. and p. 615. Baronius tom 7. p. 534. Niaphorus Hist Eccles l. 17. c 29. and 30. Niaphorus Hist Eccles l. 17. c. 30. vid. Crackanthorp of the first Synod p. 340. Hist Mix. l. 16. p. 29. Of the fifth Synod p. 340. p. 18. A. D. 703. Platina vit Sâ—rgil primi Pauli Diaconi Hist Miscel l. 19. c. 30. Pauli Diaconi Hist Miscel l. 20. c. 9. Baronius A. D. 703. vid. Baronium An. 712. pag. 18. An. D. 730. vid. Paul Diacon Miscâ—l Hist l. 21. c. 26. vid. Spanhem Hist Imag. Sect. 2. num 12. pag. 21. An. D. 861. vid. Baronium An. 861. N. 28. and 31. pag. 29. â— pag. 30. â— Baronius A. D. 861. N. 311. and An. 886. N. 23. Baronius An. D. 862. Num. 5. Baronius A. 859. N. 57 and 59. vid. Daronium An. 867. N. 101. passim Pag. 29. Pag. 14. Edict English vid. Anastasiuâ— Caesar de Jejunio Deipare apud Cotelerii Mon. Graec. tom 3. p. 435. * Compare Anast Caesar apud Cotelerii 3. tom Mon. rae p. 432. with Baronius An. 921. N. 1 and 3. An. D. 901. Constantinus Porphyrogenitus Praef. ad Edict Vnionis apud Baronium An. 901. N. 6. and Curopalates apud eundem An. 911. N. 18. Page 33. P. 33. A. D. 1146. vid. Nic. Chroniatem de Man Comneno l. 2. Sect. 3. A. D. 1147. Num. 32. * vid. Coteleri Not. ad 3. Tom. Mon. Graec. p. 645. it is probable this was that Joseph who usurped the Throne of Arsenius the Patriarch of C. P. who was unjustly deposed by a time-serving Synod called by the perjured Vsurper Michael palaeologus who being constituted Guardiâ—n with the Patriarch of the young Prince John Lascaris put out his Eyes and usurped his Throne Vpon this the Patriarchs Excommunicated him for his Perjury Vsurpation 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. Seâ— the whole Story in Nicetas Gregoras lib. 2 3 4
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 thoughâ— 't is 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 swâ—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 â—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 violâ—nt deposing Prince as well as those of a complying communicating Clergy because several of the Emperors which it mentions were better and wiser Men than many of the Bishops And if Examples when truly reported have so little force what must those have that are partly feign'd unfaithfully related and will not reach the case for which they are produced 't is 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 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 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 'T is 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 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 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 Caâ—holick People of Antioch would have suffer'd Meletius or Paulinus to have sate in that Chaire had Eustathius been alive that 't is incredible he should not repâ—ire to Antioch and appear in the Catholick Synod at that time and folly to fancy that Meletius and Paulinus would not have given place to him and to put an end to the Schism in that Church and Valesius proves from 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 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 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 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 threâ— hundred years Dius and Germanius were the only Men who sate in anothâ—r's Throne but then Narcissus being under some disgrace had voluntarily 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And St Hilary in the next Age could tell Constantius Episcopos ego sum licet in exilio permanens Ecclesiae adhuc per 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 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 of the Roman Clergy put one Felix in his Room who was Orthodox himself but being a Latitudinaian Reconciler and a Trimmer in his practice communicated with the Arriâ—â—s The sober pious Catholicks of Rome with-drew from his Communion and made application to Constantiuâ— for their restoration of their old Bishop partly indeed because Felix communicated with the Arrians but chiefly because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there 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 Chrysâ—sâ—om was put into the Throne of Constaâ—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 Celestine that Sisinnius the Successor of Atticus was consecrated by those whom Atticus ordained that the third general Council of Ephesus took no notice of any of these proceedings and in the following paragraph goes on to shew that Maximiniam and Proclus the succeeding Bishops of Constantinople 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 Heâ—â—â—â—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 Injuryâ— 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 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 Finâ—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 'T is 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 't is 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 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 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