that Catalogue of the Bishops of that See which is added at the end of the last Book Briccius is call'd the Fourth and Eustochius who succeeded upon his Death is call'd the Fifth Bishop from the first Institution of the See yet throughout the whole History Iustinian and Armentius are reckoned in the number For Perpetuus who succeeded Eustochius is call'd the Fifth Bishop after S. Martin Virus who was the 2d from Eustochius is call'd the 7th Bishop after S. Martin To him succeeded Licinius and him he calls the 8th Bishop after S. Martin Now unless Iustinian and Armentius are included in the Number Perpetuus will be only the 3d. Bishop after S. Martin Virus only the 5th and Licinius only the 6th Thirdly I observe that S. Briccius though he was so unjustly deposed by barely the Violence of the People and though he never had given up his right but had all along endeavour'd to recover it yet he himself own'd Armentius to be a true Bishop of Tours and calls him his Brother The Historian tells us that when he was sent back to Tours by the Pope to be restor'd as he lay at some distance from the City Armentius died and the death of Armentius being reveal'd to him by a Vision he thus cried out to his Company Arise quickly that we may go to the Funeral of our Brother the Bishop of Tours § 3. In the year 452. Iuvenalis being Patriarch of Ierusalem Theodosius a certain turbulent Monk and an Adversary of the Council of Chalcedon had by the slaughter of a great many Persons got himself to be ordained Patriarch of that See though Iuvenalis was still alive and had never been deposed by any Synod nor yet by the Emperour himself yet the only Objection that the Venerable the Great and Orthodox Abbot S. Euthymius made against him when urged to acknowlege him as Patriarch and to communicate with him was this That he had been guilty of many Murders and was likewise a Heretick God forbid says he I should approve of his Murders and ill Opinions Concerning Iuvenalis that he had not been Synodically deprived and that therefore it was not lawful to acknowledge a Successor not a word Theodosius had ordained many Bishops in the room of those Orthodox Bishops who were not yet returned from the Council and all places that were vacant he filled up After some little time he was deposed by the Emperour and Iuvenalis being restored was commanded by the Emperour to depose all those Bishops whom he had ordained But though he had usurpt the See after so barbarous a manner and though they that had been ordained by him were as uncanonically ordained as possibly they could be yet they who were Orthodox were still accounted true Bishops and if their Predecessors were dead were still continued in their Sees This appears from the Example of Theodotus Bishop of Ioppa who though he was ordained by him yet continued long after that time Bishop of that See and was owned as such by the Orthodox § 4. Timotheus Aelurus a notorious Eutychian Heretick who as such had been formerly condemn'd by a Synod of all the Bishops of Aegypt was in the year 457. the 1st of the Emperour Leo made Bishop of Alexandria by the People of that City Proterius the Orthodox Bishop being then living and in full possession of the See and ordained by only two Bishops and those besides Hereticks and as such judicially condemned Being made Bishop after this irregular manner his Predecessor Proterius was in a little time after murder'd as 't was thought by his procurement After some time he was deposed and banish'd by the Authority of the Emperour and the Judgment of the Bishops of the Catholick Church and an Orthodox Person Timotheus Salofaciolus was constituted his Successor After 18 years Salofaciolus was deposed by the sole Authority of the Heretical Usurper Basiliscus and Aelurus being recall'd from Banishment was again made Bishop of Alexandria Whilst he was at Constantinople with the Emperor Basiliscus Acatius the stout and Orthodox Patriarch of that City would not suffer him to enter into any of his Churches And why not Not because he was substituted in the room of one unjustly deposed by the bare Authority of Basiliscus but because he was a Heretick and a Murderer So Pope Simplicius in one of his Epistles to Acacius Thy constancy says he is praise worthy both in the sight of God and in ours in that thou wouldst not suffer that condemn'd Person to enter into any of the Churches of Constantinople not only because he was a Heretick but likewise because he was a Parricide § 5. In the year 482. Iohannes Talaias or Tabennesiotes an Orthodox Patriarch of Alexandria was deposed by the Emperour Zeno and Petrus Mongus one who had been formerly deposed from that See for being an Eutychian but had now subscribed to the Orthodox Faith and had been absolv'd by Acacius the Patriarch of Constantinople was made Bishop in his stead The reason why Talaias was deposed was this There having been great Seditions rais'd at Alexandria in the elections of the Patriarchs the Emperour had been forc'd to deprive that Church and People of their ancient Right of Election and to take upon him to constitute their Patriarch himself The Patriarch Timotheus Salofaciolus being again restored to that See sends Talaias his Oeconomus or the Treasurer of the Church to Constantinople to the Emperour to thank him for his restoring him and withal to beg of him that after his Salofaciolus's Death the Church of Alexandria might have a free Election This the Emperour grants but suspecting that Talaias might have took upon him to negotiate this Affair that so he himself might obtain the dignity he made him take an Oath that he himself would never endeavour to obtain it Talaias returning home with the Emperour's Grant was after the Death of Salofaciolus chosen Patriarch by the Orthodox party and the Emperour disliking the Election deposed him as guilty of Perjury That Talaias was really guilty he himself would never acknowlege alleging that it was only because he was Orthodox that he was deposed But guilty or not guilty deposed he was and that too by barely the Emperour's Authority as appears from Evagrius Liberatus Diaconus and the Epistles of Pope Gelasius that he had been canonically chosen and ordain'd and to all intents and purposes fully confirm'd by the Catholick Bishops of the district of Alexandria is apparent from an Epistle of Pope Simplicius to Acacius as likewise from Liberatus Diaconus who tell us besides That he had sent about his Synodical Epistles and that after he was ejected he never surrendred up his Right but still laid claim to the See of Alexandria is what I need not endeavour to prove His fleeing to Rome to the Pope that so he might be restored by his means is notorious
the Patriarchs Flavianus and Elias confuted Timotheus not known to them to be a Heretick when they communicated with him They are Honoured by the Church as Saints Page 70. CHAP. VII Flavianus Patriarch of Antioch being deposed by the Emperor Anastasius his Successor Severus is rejected by the Orthodox only because he was a Heretick Elias Patriarch of Jerusalem being violently deposed by the said Emperor his Successor John is immediately acknowleged by all the People though at the same time they hated him by the whole Church of Palaestine particularly the two great Abbots S. Sabas and S. Theodosius so famous for their Vndauntedness and Sanctity by Johannes Cappadox Patriarch of Constantinople and all the Greek Church by all the whole Church ever since those Times The Testimony of Photius Patriarch of Constantinople out of a Manuscript The old Patriarch Elias though so Tyrannically Deprived for adhering to the Orthodox Faith continues however to communicate with those who acknowledged his Successor Page 81. CHAP. VIII S. Silverius Bishop of Rome being violently deposed by Belisarius the Emperor Justinian's General his Successor Vigilius though put into his place so depriv'd though constituted by the bare Autority of Belisarius against the consent of the Clergy and though Silverius never gave up his Right is own'd and receiv'd by the 5th General Council and by all the Church as a true Pope He was generally own'd whilst Silverius himself was living Baronius's conjecture concerning his being again ordain'd after Silverius's Death confuted though for some time he communicated with Hereticks yet it was not known to the Orthodox who communicated with him Page 90. CHAP. IX Macarius Patriarch of Jerusalem being deposed by the Emperour Justinian his Successor Eustochius is own'd as a true Patriarch by the Fifth General Council and the whole Catholick Church After some time Eustochius himself is deposed by the Emperour and Macarius being restored is received by the Church According to our Adversaries Principles either Eustochius or Macarius after his Restauration was no true Patriarch yet the Church receiv'd both Page 97. CHAP. X. Eutychius Patriarch of Constantinople being violently deposed by the Emp. Justinian for refusing to subscribe to his Heresie John sirnamed Scholasticus is made Patriarch in his room After John was consecrated Patriarch Eutychius was condemned by an Assembly that consisted as well of Lay Lords as Bishops not only of Ecclesiasticks as the Vindicator contends He actually lays claim to the See despises the Sentence of his Iudges as null and invalid because they proceeded unjustly and uncanonically against him and Excommunicates them Notwithstanding all this his Successor because he prov'd Orthodox was receiv'd and own'd by all the Church as a true Patriarch He continu'd in the See near 13 years near 12 years under Justin the Younger an Orthodox Emp. He is own'd by the Church of Constantinople tho' at the same time Eutychius was exceedingly belov'd John an Orthodox Patriarch of Alexandria is consecrated by him For what reason Anastasius Patriarch by Antioch reprov'd the Patriarch of Alexandria for being ordain'd by him Anastasius did not refuse to communicate with him He is Honour'd by the Patriarch Photius with the Title of Saint Tho' Eutychius lookt upon his Deprivation as absolutely invalid and tho' he never resign'd but accounted himself still the rightful Patriarch yet he liv'd quietly and never endeavour'd to make a Division in the Church Dr. Crakanthorp's Opinion that Eutychius was deposed for being a Heretick confuted The Authority of the Life of Eutychius often quoted in this Chapter vindicated against the same Author Page 101. CHAP. XI S. Anastasius Senior Patriarch of Antioch being deposed without any Synod by the Emperor Justin Iunior tho' he never resign'd yet his Successor Gregory is own'd by all the Church He continued Patriarch till his Death for the space of 23 Years the old Patriarch Anastasius being all the while living Four Saints among those that lived at that time and communicated freely with him S. Symeon Stylites Iunior Pope Gregory the Great S. Eulogius Patriarch of Alexandria S. John Nesteutes Patriarch of Constantinople Pope Gregory communicates with him as Patriarch of Antioch tho' at the same time he declares Anastasius's Deprivation to be invalid and looks upon Anastasius to be the rightfull Patriarch S. Anastasius though deposed by the Lay-power and though he had never given up his Right yet never left the Communion of the Church Page 121. CHAP. XII S. Martin Pope of Rome being deposed without any Synod and banish'd by the Heretical Emperor Constans tho' he never resign'd yet Eugenius is chosen his Successor by the Clergy of Rome tho' at the same time they were zealous Assertors of the Orthodox Faith and had likewise a great love for S. Martin Eugenius is receiv'd and own'd by all as a true Pope and has been honour'd all along by the Church as a Saint S. Martin himself owns him as a true Pope and prays to God for him as such Page 128. CHAP. XIII Callinicus Patriarch of Constantinople being deposed without any Synod by the Emperor Justinianus Rhinotmetus his Successor Cyrus is receiv'd as a true Patriarch § 1. So likewise is Nicetas who was put into the place of the Patriarch Constantine deposed without any Synod by the Emperor Constantinus Copronymus § 2. Page 135. CHAP. XIV An Account of the Schism between Photius and Ignatius Patriarchs of Constantinople Photius who was put into Ignatius's place when deposed by the Emperor no such Person as his Enemies report him By how great a Party he was receiv'd The reason why some refused to acknowlege him was not so much because he was so constituted as because he was a Neophytus and was besides ordain'd by a Bishop Excommunicated and in their Iudgments stood himself Excommunicated at that time Ignatius professes that if Photius had been one of the Church i. e. if he had not been an Excommunicated Person at the time of his Consecration he would willingly have yielded to him Ignatius values the Counâ—ils that condemn'd him no more than he did the Lay-power The Vindicator in an Error concerning that Matter His Errors concerning the Council call'd the First and Second A New account of the reason of that Title His Error concerning the Greatness of the Synod of Rome call'd by P. Nicholas against Photius Photius after he was receiv'd by the Church and confirmed by a general Council is deposed by the bare Autority of the Emperor Leo yet his Successor Stephen is receiv'd by the Church Page 139. CHAP. XV. Nicolaus Mysticus Patriarch of Constantinople not deprived by a Synod as the Vindicator contends but by the Emperor Leo the Wise. § 1. Joseph Bishop of Brixia in Italy deposed without any Synod by King Besengarius yet his Successor Antony is own'd and receiv'd by the Church particularly by the Pope the Synods of Augspurg and Ravenna and continued in the See many years § 2. Basilius Camaterus and Nicetas Muntanes Patriarchs of
the Emperor raged with a great fury against his Name-sake the Patriarch and having found out certain Monks Clergymen and Laicks who were the Patriarch's intimate Friends he got 'em to allege against him that they had heard him speak against him to Podomagulus or Podopagurus a great Man whom the Emperor had just before put to death as accused of conspiring against him and sent 'em to the Patriarch's Palace there to witness it to his Face and the Patriarch denying it he made 'em swear by the Holy Cross that they had heard the Patriarch speak thus and thus reproachfully of him and sent some to seal up the Gate of his Palace and took him and banish'd him to Hieria and after that to the Prince's Island Theophanes adds That on the Sixteenth of November following the Emperor made Nicetas an Eunuch Patriarch in Constantine's room He further adds That on the 16 th of October next after that he sent for Constantine from the Prince's Island and having so scourg'd him as that he was not able to stand he commanded him to be carried into the Great Church and all the People of the City being gather'd together there was a Libel read publickly containing the Heads of all the Accusations that were brought against him and at the reading of every Accusation the Secretary who read it and stood by him struck him on the Face the Patriarch Nicetas sitting there in his Throne by him and seeing all that was done Then they went up into the Pulpit and the Patriarch Nicetas took the Libel and commanded some Bishops to take away his Patriarchal Cope from him and anathematiz'd him So giving him the nick-name of Scotiopsis they made him go out of the Church backward After this Relation Theophanes gives an account of his being put to death and how very inhumanely and barbarously they used him It appears from this exact and particular account that Constantine was never Synodically tried and condemned and that Nicetas was made Patriarch before he was condemn'd in the great Church and that when he was there condemn'd and deposed or degraded he was deposed or degraded by Nicetas himself who had been put into his place It likewise appears that he had never given up his Right since he still wore his Patriarchal Cope and was there deprived of it Nicephorus the Patriarch gives the same account of the Matter tho' not so particularly The Emperor says he suborn'd some of the Patriarch Constantine 's Acquaintance to depose upon Oath that they had heard him speak of the Conspiracy of Antiochus and Theophylactus They had been condemn'd together with Podopagurus And immediately sent him away as a banish'd Man to Hieria an Imperial Palace in Asia over against Constantinople and created Nicetas the Presbyter of the Church of the Apostles an Eunuch Patriarch All these things were done in the Month of August Indict 4. Not long after he sent for Constantine and commanded him to be carried to the Church and together with him he sent one of his own Secretaries with Accusations against him which the Secretary read before all the people there gather'd together striking him on the Cheek at the reading of every Accusation And then they went up into the Pulpit and deposed him the new Patriarch reading the Accusations at the Altar To the same purpose Zonaras Tho' such were the Circumstances of Nicetas's Promotion yet of any disturbance in the Church occasion'd by it not a Syllable in any Author He was readily own'd by all the Orthodox i. e. the Iconoclasts and govern'd no less than Fourteen Years as appears from Theophanes and Nicephorus Callisti The Patriarch Nicephorus in his Chronology allows him Fifteen Years If you find him call'd by any Author a Pseudo-Patriarch or the like it is onely by such as being themselves the Worshippers of Images accounted him so likewise his Predecessor himself a Heretick and on that account no true Patriarch CHAP. XIV An Account of the Schism between Photius and Ignatius Patriarchs of Constantinople Photius who was put into Ignatius's place when deposed by the Emperor no such Person as his Enemies report him By how great a Party he was receiv'd The reason why some refused to acknowlege him was not so much because he was so constituted as because he was a Neophytus and was besides ordain'd by a Bishop Excommunicated and in their Iudgments stood himself Excommunicated at that time Ignatius professes that if Photius had been one of the Church i. e. if he had not been an Excommunicated Person at the time of his Consecration he would willingly have yielded to him Ignatius values the Councils that condemn'd him no more than he did the Lay power The Vindicator in an Error concerning that Matter His Errors concerning the Council call'd the First and Second A New account of the reason of that Title His Error concerning the Greatness of the Synod of Rome call'd by P. Nicholas against Photius Photius after he was receiv'd by the Church and confirmed by a general Council is deposed by the bare Autority of the Emperor Leo yet his Successor Stephen is receiv'd by the Church IT appears from what has been said in the foregoing Chapters that the Doctrine which we maintain is grounded on the earliest Antiquity and confirm'd by the Practice of the Church in the first 400 Years after the Emperors became Christian. We are now fallen into the Dregs of time says one of our Answerers speaking of the Seventh and the following Centuries years of Superstition Idolatry Dot age and Disorder and therefore tho' the Instances produced out of this Age were truly reported and pertinent to the Purpose they would not be fit Examples for us to follow Had our Author known that the Ages of which he gives this Character were the Ages that afford his Party their most considerable in themselves inconsiderable Precedents we should not I suppose have found him so ingenuous in his Confession and free of his Characters We are now fallen into the Dregs of time 'T is true and no wonder if the Spirit of Antiquity was so far lost as that some few Instances may be found in these times agreeable to the practice of our Adversaries But this is confess'd by them themselves that the Examples of these lower Ages that do not agree with the Practice of the former are not fit Examples for us to follow In the Year 858. there broke out a Schism at Constantinople between Ignatius deposed and Photius who was constituted in his place That the Reader may have a full and perfect view of all this Concern I will first present him with a short Historical and Chronological Account of the chief Transactions Secondly I will shew what manner of Man Photius was who accepted of Ignatius's See that he was a vertuous and pious Man Thirdly I will shew by how great and numerous a Party he was receiv'd Fourthly That they that separated from him did not
and banish'd by the Heretical Emperor Constans tho' he never resign'd yet Eugenius is chosen his Successor by the Clergy of Rome tho' at the same time they were zealous Assertors of the Orthodox Faith and had likewise a great love for S. Martin Eugenius is receiv'd and own'd by all as a true Pope and has been honour'd all along by the Church as a Saint S. Martin himself owns him as a true Pope and prays to God for him as such Page 128. CHAP. XIII Callinicus Patriarch of Constantinople being deposed without any Synod by the Emperor Justinianus Rhinotmetus his Successor Cyrus is receiv'd as a true Patriarch § 1. So likewise is Nicetas who was put into the place of the Patriarch Constantine deposed without any Synod by the Emperor Constantinus Copronymus § 2. Page 135. CHAP. XIV An Account of the Schism between Photlus and Ignatius Patriarchs of Constantinople Photius who was put into Ignatius's place when deposed by the Emperor no such Person as his Enemies report him By how great a Party he was receiv'd The reason why some refused to acknowlege him was not so much because he was so constituted as because he was a Neophytus and was besides ordain'd by a Bishop Excommunicated and in their Iudgments stood himself Excommunicated at that time Ignatius professes that if Photius had been one of the Church i. e. if he had not been an Excommunicated Person at the time of his Consecration he would willingly have yielded to him Ignatius values the Councils that condemn'd him no more than he did the Lay power The Vindicator in an Error concerning that Matter His Errors concerning the Council call'd the First and Second A New account of the reason of that Title His Error concerning the Greatness of the Synod of Rome call'd by P. Nicholas against Photius Photius after he was receiv'd by the Church and confirmed by a general Council is deposed by the bare Autority of the Emperor Leo yet his Successor Stephen is receiv'd by the Church Page 139. CHAP. XV. Nicolaus Mysticus Patriarch of Constantinople not deprived by a Synod as the Vindicator contends but by the Emperor Leo the Wife § 1. Joseph Bishop of Brixia in Italy deposed without any Synod by King Berengarius yet his Successor Antony is own'd and receiv'd by the Church particularly by the Pope the Synods of Augspurg and Ravenna and continued in the See many years § 2. Basilius Camaterus and Nicetas Muntanes Patriarchs of Constantinople deposed without any Synod by the Emperor Isaacius Angelus yet no Division in the Church on their account § 3 4. The Patriarchs of the present Greek Church very frequently deprived by the Turk yet no Division in the Church As great Reason to submit to the present Possessor here as in the Greek Church The Necessity the same Page 170. CHAP. XVI The Sentence of an Uncanonical Synod esteemed by the Antients invalid S. Chrysostom Patriarch of Constantinople unjustly and invalidly deposed by a Synod He declares however at first against all Separation from the Church on his Account He afterwards yields to Resentment and refuses to Communicate with his Successors Arsacius and Atticus because they had been his Enemies and had a hand in his Deprivation The Joannites acted by their Passions not by Principles They separate from the Church not because there was another made Patriarch in S. Chrysostom's place but before that was done Arsacius being made Patriarch they refuse to Communicate with him not because he was put into S. Chrysostom's place but through Hatred against St. Chrysostom's Deposers because they frequented his Churches Pope Innocent of Rome not consistent with himself His Practice contradicts his Words He did not think Arsacius and Atticus no Bishops His Zeal for the Honour of his own See the chief Cause of his Opposing ' em He at last receives Atticus as a true Patriarch The Vindicator's Exception against the Translation of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Baroccian Treatise confuted The Eastern Bishops refuse to separate from the Communion of the Church tho' S. Chrysostom laid Claim to his See and actually separated and tho' they esteemed his Deprivation invalid So did the Monks of Egypt The Testimony of S. Nicon out of a MS. S. Nicon himself tho' he esteemed his Deprivation extremely unjust yet approves of those that did not separate on his Account S. Chrysostom takes it for granted as a thing of Course that all would immediately resolve to choose a new Patriarch in his room The Patriarch Atticus highly esteemed by the whole African Church The Ecclesiastical Historian Socrates disapproves of S. Chrysostom's Deprivation yet speaks of Arsacius and Atticus as of true Patriarchs Theodoret extremely offended at the Injustice of his Deposers yet reckons both Arsacius and Atticus among the Patriarchs of Constantinople They are both owned in all the Catalogues of the Patriarchs Their Ordinations never questioned by any Atticus praised by P. Celestine I. and owned to be a true Successor of S. Chrysostom Page 176. CHAP. XVII Deprivations by Heretical Synods invalid S. Eustathius Patriarch of Antioch deposed by an Heretical Synod he himself accounts his Deprivation invalid The Orthodox separate from the Communion of his Successors not because he was invalidly deprived but because they accounted them Hereticks Eustathius acts as Bishop of Antioch tho' in banishment as long as his Successors were Hereticks but as soon as Meletius an Orthodox Person was ordain'd his Successor he desisted and concern'd himself no more as Bishop of Antioch That he lived till Meletius was made Patriarch demonstrated against Baronius Valesius c. Why some of the Orthodox refused to submit to Meletius The Vindicator's Assertion That none accounted Meletius an Arian whilst he was Bishop confuted The Schism between the Meletians and the Paulinists no Example against us § 1 2. The Instance of Maximus and Cyril of Jerusalem examin'd § 3. Euphemius Patriarch of Constantinople deposed by an Heretical Synod yet Macedonius an Orthodox and a good Man accepts of his See tho' he own'd him to be the rightfull Patriarch Macedonius is receiv'd by the Catholicks tho' they loved Euphemius and accounted him unjustly deprived He is own'd by S. Elias Bishop of Jerusalem tho' Elias at the same time declared Euphemius's Deprivation unjust and refused to subscribe to it § 4. The Schisms of the Novatians Donatists and Meletians of Egypt no Examples against us § 5. Two Fragments of Photius out of a M S. § 1 3. Page 186. CHAP. XVIII The Conclusion Bishops deposed by the Civil Autority obliged even in common Charity to acquiesce But whether they acquiesce or not the Church is to submit to the present Possessor Page 196. The CASE of SEES Vacant by an Unjust or Uncanonical Deprivation Stated c. CHAP. I. The Reasonableness of submitting to the present Possessor if otherwise unexceptionable tho' the Predecessor was unjustly or invalidly deposed by the Secular Power demonstrated Objections answer'd No obligation
Vir laudabilis as he is call'd by Symmachus That mentis sanctissimae Vir as he is styl'd by the Emperour Gratian That Vir egregius eruditus in Scripturis That Ecclesiae Doctor as he is term'd by S. Ierome the most glorious Damasus as Theodoret calls him he that was adorn'd with all sorts of Vertue and was always ready to defend all true Apostolical Doctrines both by his Words and by his Actions as the same Author says of him He in a word whom the Emperour Theodosius by a Law makes the Rule and Standard of all Orthodoxy It may perhaps be objected That tho' our Damasus when he chiefly flourish'd was accounted so great and so worthy a Man yet in Felix's time he might be but a young Man and so his Autority will be much less considerable To this I answer That in the time of Pope Felix our Damasus was so far from being a young Man that when Felix was made Pope he was above fifty Years old and when Felix died to whom he had constantly adher'd he was above sixty And it was not full a Year after Felix's Death before he himself was advanc'd to the Honour of the Popedom This is manifest from hence That after he was made Pope viz. upon Liberius's Death in the Year 366 in the Month of October he liv'd according to those that say most but 18 Years and 2 or 3 Months more truly but 16 Years and yet when he died he was as S. Ierome his Familiar Friend attests about 80 Years of Age. He died as Marcellinus Comes witnesses in the Month of October when Antonius and Syagrius were Consuls that is in the Year 382. He was therefore 53 Years of Age when Felix was made Bishop and when Felix died he was in the 63d Year of his Age. Felix as is above said was promoted in the room of Liberius in the Year 355. and was again turn'd out upon the Restauration of Liberius somewhat less than two Years after Eight Years as has been already observ'd he liv'd after that and died on the 10th of the Kalends of December when Valentinian and Valens were Consuls i. e. in the Year 365. Liberius surviv'd Felix but about 10 Months for he died on the 8th of the Kalends of October in the Consulship of Gratian and Dagalaiphus i. e. the Year following This is plain from the express Words of the Presbyters Marcellinus and Faustinus I need not add any thing to consute that Story which we find in two fabulous Lives of Pope Damasus That when Pope Liberius was banish'd he constituted our Damasus his Vicar to supply his place in his absence and that he accordingly did so till Liberius was restor'd If that be true then he did not adhere to Pope Felix But it needs but very little Judgment were there no good Autority for what we have here laid down to discover the falseness of that Monkish Story and 't is easie to shew how little the Writers of it knew relating to Liberius's Banishment I shall take it for granted that there is no one so Injudicious as to hearken to it I must here add That tho' our Authors when they speak of the People's Aversion to Felix are wont to make use of general Terms and tell us that all the People refus'd to communicate with him yet I do not believe that they ought to be understood strictly but onely of the much greater Part. That Felix had a very considerable Party not onely amongst the Clergy but likewise amongst the Laity seems to me very probable from hence That within a Year after Felix's Death when Vrsinus or Vrsicinus was chose Pope by the Liberians and Damasus by the Felicians there arose a great Contention not onely among the Clergy but likewise among the Laity and Damasus then had the greatest part of the People on his side and many of 'em were so zealous and violent for him as that much bloud was spilt This Schism and Contention seems to have proceeded partly from some former Heats and Sidings of the People I know that the Presbyters Marcellinus and Faustinus say that Damasus had brib'd the People with a great Summ of Money But that is onely a malicious Suggestion such as might be expected from Persons so much his Enemies I shall not take notice that in the Pontifical it is said That when Felix was Martyr'd there suffer'd with him multi Clerici Fideles not onely many of the Clergy but likewise many others of the Faithfull The Story of his being put to Death is too uncertain much more the Circumstances of it Yet at least this appears from that Story that amongst the Antients 't was believ'd that many of the Laity as well as of the Clergy adher'd to him Having thus shewn what Reception Pope Felix met with at Rome I shall shew in the next place that tho' he was made Bishop in the room of the unjustly deposed Liberius yet first the Catholick Bishops of his own district communicated with him and receiv'd him as their Metropolitan Secondly His Ordinations were receiv'd and allow'd of as valid by even his Adversary Liberius Thirdly The whole Western Church has all along own'd him as one of the true Bishops of Rome It cannot be expected but that he who was Ordain'd by the Arians in the place of one deposed for opposing the Arians and likewise communicated with the Arians should by many be both thought and spoken ill of But whoever they were that did not approve of our Pope Felix because they thought him an Arian or because he was ordain'd by the Arians or because he communicated with the Arians their Autority and Judgment make nothing at all against us He was thought as has been already observ'd not onely by the People of Rome but likewise by S. Athanasius an Arian So Socrates calls him expressly tho' he mentions with all that others affirm'd he was Orthodox So likewise S. Ierome in his Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers tho' indeed in Sophronius's Greek Translation of that Work the word Arian is not to be found From this ill Opinion that many had conceiv'd of him it came to pass that by some there was this false story rais'd concerning him That as soon as he was put by the Arians into Liberius's place he was punish'd by God with the loss of his Eyes and afterwards died of a Pestilential Disease This Story is told of him by the Author of that Life of S. Athanasius which is extant in Photius Hence likewise it was that the Writer of one of the Lives of Pope Damasius whom another follows in his Fiction invented that Story above mentioned that Liberius made Damasus his Vicar to oppose the Endeavours of the Arians during the time of his Banishment He had read in S. Ierome that Felix was ordain'd by the Arian Acacius so he himself writes and thence he concluded that Felix himself was an Arian Thence