that unjust Deprivation however were not so far transported as to make a Schism in the Church But then the Populace of Constantinople they were so enraged at it that they not only forsook but like Recusants or a Rabble set fire to the Church which took hold also of the Parliament House and laid it in ashes But as that case is quite foreign to this of our New Bishops so was the Separation no less contrary to the Spirit of S. Chrysostom That Good Man as a Bishop that was then present has related it when he saw he must be deposed advised and charged the Bishops his Friends more than once That as they loved Christ none of them should leave his Church upon his account That they must keep Communion with his Deposers and not rend and divide the Church And he injoyn'd 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 How could he if he had now been alive have more clearly and expresly given his opinion in our Case If a man otherwise never so worthy will acknowledge no duty to the Civil Magistrate which protects him if he shall refuse to act in his Function if he will not be the Bishop somebody else must be For the Church cannot be without a Bishop This is not being deprived but relinquishing and a Successor does not invade but is placed in the Chair by the united Efficacy of Canons Law and Necessity 'T is supposed the Reader knows that for several Ages the Greek Churches have erroneously maintain'd That Adoration is to be paid to the Images of our Saviour and therefore needs not be offended at one or two passages in this Treatise to which it is now time to dismiss him Imprimatur Georgius Royse R. R. in Christo P. ac D no D no Johanni Archiepisc Cantuar. à Sacr. Domest July 6th 1691. ERRATA PAg. 13. l. 10. read He 's constrain'd by P. 19. l. 13. read Syncellus or P. ibid. l. 16. read Nicolaus P. 21. Marg. l. 7. read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A TREATISE Out of Ecclesiastical Histories concerning such as at several times have been promoted to the Patriarâ—hal See contrary to the Canons the rightfull Patriarchs being depos'd and yet living Amongst whom we may observe that not one of those that were unjustly depos'd did ever separate himself from the Communion of the Church upon the account of his being depos'd provided that he that was uncanonically promoted after him was Orthodox Excepting onely the Case of Chrysostome which requires a particular Consideration THE great John Chrysostome a most holy and excellent person living within the Jurisdiction of the Antiochian See was ordain'd Deacon by Meletius Patriarch of Antioch This Meletius having formerly been made Bishop of Sebastia by the Arians and afterwards translated to the Throne of Antioch by the Suffrages both of the Arians and Orthodox Eustathius late Bishop of Sebastia being yet in banishment was nevertheless because of his Orthodoxy both accepted by and beneficial to the Church Even the great Basil was ordain'd Deacon by the said Meletius Now Chrysostome being call'd from Antioch and seated upon the Throne of Constantinople was afterwards unjustly depos'd and thrust out of the City and after him there was consecrated Arsacius the Brother of Nectarius who was Patriarch there before Chrysostome He held the Patriarchate 14 months and as cannot but be supposed ordain'd Presbyters Bishops and Deacons none of whom were rejected by the Church After his death the Blessed Atticus was consecrated Chrysostome being yet alive and in exile He raised a Persecution against those that adher'd to Chrysostome and possessing the Patriarchate 20 years was approved by the Church both he himself and those that he had ordain'd no one being troubled or called in question upon the account of his Ordination These things are deliver'd in the History of Socrates From Atticus Sisinnius who succeeded him deriv'd his Ordination and by Sisinnius Proclus was consecrated Bishop of Cyzicus Now if you would be certain that Atticus was own'd and receiv'd by the Church the divine Celestine Bishop of Rome is a witness of that matter who in an Epistle to Nestorius praises and owns both Atticus himself and Sisinnius who was Patriarch after him and ranks them as Patriarchs after Chrysostome After Sisinnius Nestorius was plac'd in the Throne And the Third General Council did not narrowly examine into the promotions of those Patriarchs or about their Ordinations but only deposing the Heretick Nestorius it receiv'd and own'd all those that had been made Priests or Bishops by Arsacius Atticus and Sisinnius and even by Nestorius too provided that they profess'd the Orthodox Faith and confess'd the Blessed Virgin to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the Mother of God After the Council Maximian was consecrated Patriarch by such as had receiv'd their Ordinations from the aforesaid four Patriarchs After him the Bl. Proclus who deriv'd his Ordination from the same Hands was advanc'd to that Dignity These things are related in the History of Zonaras Now the Bl. Proclus and not only he but likewise Maximian before him and Atticus and Sisinnius were receiv'd into Communion by S. Cyril After Proclus by the same succession of Ordination Flavianus obtain'd the Patriarchate See now the Succession They that depos'd Chrysostome consecrated Arsacius the same together with Arsacius consecrated Atticus Arsacius and Atticus Sisinnius and Sisinnius Proclus who as I said held Church-communion with S. Cyril Observe moreover that Severianus Bishop of Gabala and Acacius Bishop of Berrhea who were the chief Authours of all the Calamities that befell Chrysostome being afterwards call'd in question by Pope Innonocent were neither depos'd nor reprehended by him the Pope leaving their punishment to God The Bl. Flavianus having condemn'd and depriv'd the Heretick Eutyches the Emperour Theodosius commanded Dioscorus Patriarch of Alexandria to inspect and examine again into the matters between them Dioscorus thereupon having call'd a Council at Ephesus the second of that place judg'd condemn'd depos'd and murder'd the B. Flavianus contrary to all Ecclesiastical order absolving Eutyches and consecrating Anatolius in Flavianus's room You see that Anatolius was consecrated contrary to the Canons seeing it was by Dioscorus a Murderer and a Heretick that espous'd the Cause and the Heresie of Eutyches But observe further Juvenalis Bishop of Jerusalem Basil Bishop of Seleucia Photius Bishop of Isauria in Epirus Eustathius Bishop of Berytus Thalassius Bishop of Cesarea in Cappadocia and in a word all that whole Council concurr'd and acted with Dioscorus in the unjust ejectment of Flavianus and the unlawfull Ordination of Anatolius in his place Yet none of them 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 onely requir'd of every one the profession of the Orthodox Faith Now that Anatolius was promoted against the Canons Pope Leo attests writing thus concerning him to the Emperour Marcian That therefore he would make no inquiry about Anatolius 's Consecration because he profess'd the Orthodox Belief These things are written in the Acts of the Second Council concerning Flavianus In the Reign of the Emperour Anastasius when the Heresie of the Acephali was rife the Emperour himself became addicted to it and expell'd out of the City three Patriarchs because they refus'd to embrace his false Opinion and anathematize the Fourth General Council and communicate with Severus the first Euthymius the second Macedonius who succeeded him unlawfully indeed but because he was an assertour of the Catholick Belief he was not rejected by the Church neither did Euthymius himself recede from his Communion and the third Timotheus who himself likewise was unlawfully promoted in the room of Macedonius who yet was not rejected by Macedonius because he was a maintainer of the true Faith Nay even the great Elias Bp. of Jerusalem embrac'd the Communion of all these three Patriarchs when all were alive together being troubled indeed at the ejectment of him in possession but receiving the Successour also because of his Orthodox Faith The same Emperour Anastasius deposed and banished the said B. Elias from the See of Jerusalem because he would not come over to his Heretical Opinion and constituted John in his place whom because he publickly preach'd the Orthodox Belief contrary to the Emperour's Expectation Elias in no wise rejected but continued in Communion with him And Theodosius and Sabas those Reverend Fathers the Heads and Chief of all the Monks of the Holy City visiting and relieving Elias in his exile both lov'd him and communicated with him as an injur'd Patriarch and yet they communicated with John too that sate then in the Throne of Jerusalem as their Patriarch And therefore the Names both of John and Elias were written in the sacred Diptychs of Jerusalem in these words May the memory of Elias and John be everlasting These things are written in the Life of the holy and great Sabas In the days of Athanasius the Great Maximus the Confessour was Patriarch of Jerusalem Now when a Synod was called at Tyre by the Emperour Constantine to consider of the matters relating to Athanasius and laying false things to his charge had condemned and deposed him Athanasius flies to Maximus at Jerusalem Maximus thereupon calls a private Synod and repeals what was done by the Synod of Tyre against Athanasius and restores him to his See and establishes likewise the Doctrine of the Homoousion Upon that the Bishop of Cesarea in Palestine unjustly ejects Maximus and sets up Cyril in his room one that was then the chief of the Arian Party but afterwards becoming a Convert to the Homoousion or Orthodox Faith he was willingly receiv'd and allowed as Patriarch by the Church and was stiled The great and The holy Cyrill And observe that even Maximus himself did not withdraw from Cyrill's Communion therefore both were acknowledged as Saints that is had their Names in the Diptychs of the Church as both Assertours of the same Faith These things are deliver'd in the Life of the great Athanasius In the Emperour Justinian's Reign Eutychius of Amasia being constituted Patriarch of Constantinople a Man holy and belov'd of God was unjustly depos'd and expell'd the City and John was preferr'd to the See But Eutychius did not upon that account separate himself from the Communion of John and both therefore were receiv'd by the Church In the same Emperour's time Athimus Bp. of Trebisond was translated to the See of Constantinople He being discover'd to be an Heretick was depos'd by Pope Agapetus who set up in his place the most holy Menas But his Ordinations were allowed of as valid Afterwards when the Heresie of the Monothelites spread it self and four Patriarchs successively Sergius Pyrhus Paul and another were of that Sect and as it must needs be suppos'd ordain'd and consecrated many Not one so ordain'd or consecrated provided he relinquished and anathematiz'd his Heresie was rejected by the Church but all were receiv'd by the sixth General Council and by George Patriarch of Constantinople The Emperour Justinian surnam'd Rhinotmetus coming the second time to the Throne depos'd and banish'd unjustly the most holy Patriarch Callinicus and plac't Cyrus a Recluse of Amastris in the See Now observe that Callinicus did not separate himself from the Church and from Cyrus upon the account of his unjust deprivation and that Cyrus together with those he had ordain'd were received by the Church Artemius otherwise nam'd Anastasius being advanc'd to the Imperial Throne upon the death of the Patriarch of Constantinople constituted in his place the most holy Germanus Bp. of Cyzicus Then Leo Isaurus obtaining the Empire and furiously raging against the Sacred Images banishes the holy Germanus and places Anastasius in his Throne Fifty six years after the sixth General Council was call'd which Tarasius was President of who had been consecrated Patriarch before the Council was appointed but whether by Bishops that were for or against Images is uncertain And all that opposed the Adoration of Images upon renouncing their Heresie were received by that Council Now in the time of this holy Tarasius there happen'd that which follows Constantine then Emperour after he had put away his lawfull Wife and shut her up in a Nunnery against her will espoused another that had her self been a Nun and so became according to the express Declaration of the Gospel a manifest Adulterer Upon this the Patriarch Tarasius refusing to officiate in so unlawfull a Marriage Joseph the Steward of the Church was so hardy as to perform the Office and render'd himself thereby obnoxious to deprivation The Patriarch attempting to deprive him was deterred by the Emperour who declared that if Joseph was ejected he would set up the Heresie of the Iconomachi again which forc'd the Patriarch to receive him though much against his will But the Bl. Theodorus Abbot of the Monastery of Studium withdrew himself from the Communion both of Church and Emperour too from the Emperour as being Adulterer from the Church because it received Joseph the Confirmer of that adulterous Match And upon that account he suffer'd a thousand Injuries from the Emperour After this Constantine had his eyes put out and his Mother Irene took the Government upon her She recalls the Bl. Theodorus commends both him and Tarasius the former for his prudence in his care for the Church and the latter for his exact observance of Discipline Then the Patriarch ejects Joseph the cause of all this Schism and he and Theodorus are at unity again After this Irene is depos'd and Nicephorus the
THE UNREASONABLENESS OF A SEPARATION From the New Bishops OR A TREATISE OUT OF Ecclesiastical History SHEWING That although a Bishop was unjustly deprived neither He nor the Church ever made a Separation if the Successor was not a Heretick Translated out of an ancient Greek Manuscript in the Publick Library at Oxford by Humfrey Hody B.D. Fellow of Wadham College LONDON Printed by I. Heptinstall for Henry Mortlock at the Phoenix in S. Paul's Church-yeard MDCXCI Viro Summo Sapientissimo Sanctissimóque R. R. in Christo Patri ac Domino D no JOHANNI Divinâ Providentiâ Archiepiscopo Cantuariensi Totius Angliae Primati Metropolitano ANTISTITI verè ORTHODOXO Tractatum hunc contra Schisma Sincerissimo affectu Animóque Pacis ac Tranquillitatis Ecclesiae cupientissimo è tenebris suis jam editum Reverentiâ maximâ quâque per est humilitate Dicat consecrátque HVMFREDVS HODIVS THE PREFACE THE Greek Manuscript from which this Treatise is translated is in that part of the Publick Library at Oxon that is called the Baroccian the CXLII d in number according to the order those Books are set in at present where it may be seen by any that either out of Curiosity may desire satisfaction or have any Suspicion that the whole may be an Imposture or any part of it an Interpolation For as for the exactness and fidelity that has been used in this English Interpretation we appeal to the Original Greek which is now in the Press and will speedily be published with a Latin Version 'T is very likely that this at Oxford is the only Copy of this Book now remaining in the World And that it should be preserved till our Times and yet hitherto be overlooked and at this very Juncture be taken notice of and so opportunely brought to light seems to be more than a fortuitous Hit it appears to have something of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and a singular Providence in it God grant it may have that good effect upon those unsatisfied persons of the Church of England which so many examples and authorities of Antiquity that Antiquity which they profess to imitate and pretend to allege may give us reason to expect Surely no uncharitable aspersions of Time-serving courting Preferment or the like that might be cast upon any that should write now in this Cause can take place against this Author so remote from the present Age and Controversie 'T is pity we cannot know whom we are obliged to for this Excellent Tract There 's no Name prefixt before it nor any Characters in it that may lead us to a probable conjecture about the Author But for his Age without question he lived CCCC Years ago Seeing that the last History he produces is in the XII Century and the latest Author he cites was in the beginning of the XIII And as to his Authority and Credit though we need be less concerned about that because he relates every thing from the Testimonies of others and much more than is here said may be easily made out from approved and authentick Historians yet He himself appears to have been no inconsiderable person and I believe no less than a Bishop That this Treatise was a Sermon may be manifestly discover'd from two passages in the 18 and 19 pages where he addresses himself to his Auditor and not his Reader And the bulk of it is agreeable to a Greek Homily And that the Author lived under the Jurisdiction of the See of Constantinople will be granted without difficulty because he has confined himself to the Histories in the Succession of those Patriarchs and from his own words page 22. That from five Constantinopolitan Bishops the Ordinations of all the Clergy were conveyed down to his time The occasion of composing our MS. seems to have been this A Patriarch of Constantinople right or wrong was deposed and another preferr'd to the See Vpon this some Friends and Dependants of the Deprived began to make a Party and stir up the people to a Schism giving out That the former was still their genuine and Canonical Bishop that it was sinfull to have Communion with the New one and that all his Ordinations would be invalid Whereupon our Author probably one of the Bishops that assisted at the New Patriarch's Consecration forty or fifty were often present on such occasions one that had a tender concern for the Peace of the Church and was apprehensive of the sin and danger of such a Separation made this Historical Discourse to the People as 't is credible in the Cathedral Church of Sophia wherein he has included all the memorable and parallel examples that had happen'd to that See within the space of near a thousand years He allows those Advocates for a Separation all that they would have he puts the case with all the advantage on that side Admit that the deposed Bishop was unjustly deprived suppose that the New one was uncanonically promoted even in these circumstances if he was not a Heretick neither the People nor the ejected Patriarch himself ever refused Communion with him the sufficience of his Ordinations was never question'd by any Council there was no Precedent for Schism upon those accounts in all the History of the Church the Concord and Tranquillity and Prosperity of the Whole were of more consideration in those Ages than private Interest or hidden Resentment or the more tempting Pleasure of being Head of a Party God forbid that the Case thus stated by our Author should be thought parallel to that of our New Bishops or that this Book should be now publish'd as if they needed that kind of defence But we propose and recommend our Treatise as an Argumentation a fortiori If in the cases of Unjust Deprivation and Uncanonical Succession a Separation is without Example in Ecclesiastical Story how inexcusable will they be that shall make Faction and Schism where neither of those hard circumstances can be found As to the Exception of S. Chrysostom's Case which it seems could not be comprehended in so short a Discourse and was put off therefore by our Author to a particular Disquisition which if ever it was publish'd is either lost or yet undiscover'd We must confess there was something singular in the misfortune of that great and popular Man The Western Churches did a long time refuse Communion with some Bishops that out of envy and malignity by sinister interpretations and the falsest calumnies deprived Him of the See and the Church of one of the best Prelates it ever had Those men they justly detested as the actors and contrivers of a good Patriarch's ruin for the Emperor the Civil Power was blameless in a manner and but passive in the business Thus it was in the West at a distance in which case the renouncing Communion was only as it were a breaking off a Correspondence But how were matters carried nearer home 'T is well known that most of the Eastern Bishops though they would not be accessory to
Treasurer usurps the Throne and Tarasius dies and the holy Patriarch Nicephorus succeeds him He constrains the Emperour to receive Joseph again whom Tarasius had deprived Upon which Theodorus a second time withdraws from the Church A while after that Emperour and his Son Stauracius dying Michael Curopalates gets the Sceptre and the Patriarch Nicephorus taking hold of that opportunity deprives Joseph again and so he and Theodorus are reconciled But those opprobrious invectives that Theodorus during his banishment had used against the holy Tarasius and Nicephorus were by no means approv'd of by the Church as proceeding from littleness of mind For the holy Methodius in his Epistle to the Monks of Studium has these words If your Bl. Abbot had not retracted what he spoke against the holy Tarasius and Nicephorus he should not have been Fellow-minister with us we would not have receiv'd him into our Communion These things are found in the second Book of the holy Nicon in one of the Epistles of Methodius The same holy Methodius in his last Testament which he made at his death makes this Ordinance concerning the Monks of Studium that refused to join in Communion with the Catholick Church If they repent and come over to the Catholick Church and renounce their Schism let them be receiv'd as barely Christians but by no means be advanc'd to the Priesthood Thus in the Volume of Councils which is read in the Church as every body knows all those things that were spoken and written against the holy Patriarchs Tarasius and Nicephorus are made an Anathema And moreover concerning the same Affair of Theodorus Studites this also is written That the holy Theodorus did not do well in separating himself from the Communion of the Catholick Church and the holy Patriarchs Tarasius and Nicephorus for they were then the Church For if we cannot withdraw our selves from the Communion of any ordinary Priest without the sin of Heresie how much less may we separate from the Communion of such holy orthodox Patriarchs the Luminaries of the World And although the holy Theodorus now with God was so far hurried away as to make this Schism yet afterwards he relinquisht it and set himself right again as the holy Methodius manifests in the foresaid Epistle And the saying of the Prophet David was fulfilled in this holy Man Though he fall he shall not be utterly cast down for the Lord upholdeth him with his hand After this during the Reigns of Leo Armenius Michael Traulus and his Son Theophilus successively for the space of twenty six Years there was not one orthodox Patriarch but all were of the Sect of the Iconomachi and maintained the Opinion of the Emperours But after the death of Theophilus his Wife the blessed Theodora together with a Synod plac'd the holy Methodius in the See who was suceeded by the great Ignatius Then Michael reigning with his Mother Theodora was together with her corrupted and was therefore sharply reprov'd by the holy Ignatius and excluded the Communion of the Church Caesar therefore being able to doe what he pleas'd by his Imperial power depos'd and banish'd Ignatius and establish'd Photius in his stead After this came Basilius Macedo to the Crown and he presently deposes Photius and reestablishes Ignatius but after the death of Ignatius he again restores Photius Which indeed is a thing to be wonder'd at For if Photius was depos'd as an Adulterer and Usurper of the Throne how comes he again to be promoted as innocent But be it as it will the Church however receives and acknowledges and honours them both because Orthodox and thus she says in her Diptychs May the memory of Ignatius Photius Stephanus and Antonius the most holy Patriarchs be everlasting and whatsoever is spoken against Ignatius and Photius and Stephanus and Antonius the most holy Patriarchs is an Anathema Now let the Hearer observe again that even the holy Ignatius did not because he was unjustly thrust out of the See either recede from the Communion of Photius or perswade the People to do so For this is the scope and design of all the Histories that are here produced To shew that not one of all those Patriarchs that were unjustly and uncanonically thrust out of their proper Sees did ever withdraw himself from the Communion of his Successor or perswade the People to separate from the Church but that both they and the People continued in Communion if so be their Successors were Orthodox After this Leo the Son of Basilius being possess'd of the Imperial Sceptre depriv'd that orthodox Patriarch whom he found in the See and promoted Stephanus his own Brother in his room one that was sound indeed in the Faith but nevertheless was made Patriarch contrary to the Canons But no Schism was made in the Church upon that account For Stephanus likewise was own'd and receiv'd by her So that thus she speaks in her Diptychs May the memory of Ignatius Photius and Stephanus the most holy Patriarchs be everlasting The same Emperor Leo surnamed the Philosopher ejected the most rightfull Patriarch Nicolaus a Man renowned for his Orthodoxy out of the See because he refused to consent to his fourth Marriage and oppos'd him earnestly in his design of making it lawfull to marry the fourth time and yet to continue in government though in his room he advanc'd Euthymius who was Syncellus's or Nicolaus's Assessor Here observe again that the Patriarch Nocolaus did not separate himself from the Catholick Church or from Euthymius nor teach the People to do so and that undoubtedly because Euthymius was orthodox Nay when after the decease of the Emperor Leo his Brother Alexander that succeeded him deposed Euthymius and replaced Nicolaus who was yet living in the See yet the Ordinations of Euthymius were not rejected seeing that they were orthodox and by an orthodox Patriarch These things are written in the History of Zonaras The Emperor Manuel very wrongfully ejected Cosmas Atticus the Patriarch a Man full of Piety and Goodness and advanc'd another to his See But Cosmas though highly resenting this injustice did not however either himself break off from the Communion of the Church or incite the People to such a Schism But he made this denunciation That the Empress should never have any male Issue which accordingly came to pass for the Emp. Alexius was born of the second Wife Mary that that was descended from the Latins Upon this imprecation of Cosmas Contostephanus of Scio one of the By-standers out of zeal for the Empress pressed toward him to strike him but was stopt by some body Let him alone says Cosmas for he himself suddenly shall have a stroke from a stone which accordingly came to pass For not long after Contostephanus was kill'd with the blow of a Stone in the War at Corcyra This is in the History of Choniates The Emperor Isaacius Angelus finding Basilius Camaterus in the Patriarchal Chair deposed him without any just
cause and promoted Nicetas the Chaplain of the Church to the See A year after he deposes him too upon pretence of his simplicity and old age and promotes Leontius protesting that the Blessed Virgin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 appear'd to him and bid him prefer Leontius who was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from that occasion Soon after not liking this Leontius neither he again averrs the Blessed Virgin had appear'd to him and bid him depose him too which accordingly he does and sets up Dositheus Bishop of Jerusalem in his room This giving general dissatisfaction Dositheus also is ejected and another put in his place So in the space of nine years that Isaacius reign'd he made five Patriarchs successively By whom as must needs be suppos'd there were many persons ordain'd And from them the whole order of the Priesthood and all the Church is brought down to our days And 't is a matter of admiration that in the reign of that Emperor five Patriarchs succeeding one another and all alive together should not separate from one anothers Communion because one was put in and another was put out purely at the Emperor's pleasure To conclude all in a word One thing only was required by the Church that the new Bishop should profess the same Orthodox Faith with the other that was depos'd but as for other Complaints and Accusations that ever and anon were made upon such Promotions except it were Heresie she never made any strict examination into them AN ABSTRACT OF This TREATISE Being an Account in short of such Patriarchs as at several times have been unjustly depos'd by the Emperors yet did not separate themselves from the Communion of their unlawfull Successors nor perswade the People to do so because the Successors were Orthodox IN Arcadius's Reign the great Chrysostom was unjustly depos'd his Successors were Arsacius and the divine Atticus In Theodosius Junior's time the holy Flavianus was depos'd by the Heretick Dioscorus his Successor was Anatolius In Anastasius's Reign Euthymius was depos'd his Successor was Macedonius and his Timotheus In the same Reign Elias Bishop of Jerusalem was depos'd his Successor was John In the Reign of Constantine the Great Maximius Bishop of Jerusalem was depos'd by the Bishop of Cesarea in Palestine his Successor was Cyrill In the Reign of Justinian Eutychius of Amasia Patriarch of C. P. was depos'd his Successor was John In the same Reign Anthimus once Bishop of Trebisond then Patriarch of C. P. was depos'd his Successor was the most holy Menas In the Reign of Justinianus Rhinotmetus Callinicus was depos'd his Successor was Cyrus a Recluse of Amastris In the Reign of Michael the Son of Theophilus the great Ignatius was depos'd his Successour was Photius In the Reign of Basilius Macedo Photius the Successor of Ignatius was depos'd he was succeeded by the foresaid Ignatius and Ignatius again by him In the Reign of Leo the Philosopher Photius was again depos'd upon some false accusations which the Emperor brought against him his Successor was Stephanus the Emperor's Brother Under the same Emperor Nicolaus the Mystical Philosopher was depos'd his Successor was Euthymius the Syncellus In the Reign of Alexander the Brother of Leo Euthymius the Successor of Nicolaus was depos'd and Nicolaus again restor'd In the Emperor Manuel's Reign Cosmas Atticus was depos'd and succeeded by Theodosius In the Reign of Isaacius Angelus Basilius Camaterus was depos'd and succeeded by the Chaplain Nicetas Mundanes Under the same Emperor Nicetas was depos'd and succeeded by Leontius Theotocites In the same Reign Leontius Theotocites was depos'd and succeeded by Dositheus B. of Jerusalem In the same Reign Dositheus likewise was depos'd and succeeded by Georgius Xiphilinus FINIS * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pallad p. 80. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theod. C. 5. L. 34. †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Socrat. VI. 8. * Pallad vita Chrys. p. 67. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 †p. 69. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 * Pall. p. 90. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 * Add. * This Arsacius because of his Brother Nectarius's Jealousie towards him had formerly sworn that he would never accept of the See of Constantinople So the MS. which in this place is written erroneously * The words of the MS. are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Which in an uncommon acceptation of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be thus translated Now they that had been ordain'd by Atticus ordain'd Sisinnius For that Sisinnius when Atticus died the 10th of October was only a Presbyter and was consecrated Patriarch the 28th of February following appears from Socrat. lib. VII c. 26. See the Gr. and Lat. Edition * MS. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. or those that were ordain'd by them as before * MS. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Which may be thus translated They that deposed Chrysostome consecrated Arsacius the same and those consecrated by Arsacius Atticus those by Arsacius and Atticus Sisinnius and those by Sisinnius Proclus * Or Discovered to Pope Innocent MS. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 * MS. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is a mistake of the writer and must be thus corrected 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. Basil Bp. of Seleucia in Isauria and Photius Bp. of Tyre See the Gr. Lat. Edit * So the MS. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 An errour of the Writer for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as all Historians call him * Written by Cyril of Scythopolis c. 56 57 c. Cotelerii Ecclesiae Graecae Monum Tom. 111. * Ms. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. had condemned him when he was absent or had condemned him for not making his Appearance * Acacius * MS. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Which is corrupted the true reading being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in stead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i.e. Sergius Pyrrhus Paul Peter See the Gr. and Lat. Edition * So indeed the MS. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. the Bishop of Constantinople being dead allowing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which I do not remember to have read to be for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But this being not true in matter of fact Zonaras Tom. 2. p. 98. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I believe the Author might write thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. ejecting the present Patriarch out of the See * Maria. * Theodote MS. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i.e. One that was a Nun too Theophanes and Zonaras call her 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lady of the Bed-chamber * Ms. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Which was the highest Ecclesiastical Office under the Patriarch * MS. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 * So indeed the MS. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Perhaps our Author might use an innovated word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. that those contumelious Aspersions proceeded from the bitterness and vexation of