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 Heretic.
Translated out of an ancient Greek Manuscript in the Public Library at Oxford,
by Humphrey Hody, B.D., Fellow of Wadham College.
THE Greek Manuscript, from which this Treatise is translated, is in that part of the Public Library at Oxon, that is called the Baroccian; the CXLIId 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.
'Tis 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 to Qeion 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 Controversy.
'Tis pity we cannot know, whom we are obliged to for this Excellent Tract. There's no Name prefixed before it; nor any Characters in it, that may lead us to a probably 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 authentic 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 discovered 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 preferred to the See. Upon 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 sinful 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 he 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 in this Historical Discourse to the People, as 'tis credible, in the Cathedral Church of Sophia; wherein he has included all the memorable and parallel examples, that had happened 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 Heretic, neither the People nor the ejected Patriarch himself ever refused Communion with him; the sufficience of his Ordinations was never questioned by any Council; there was no Precedent for Schism upon those accounts in all the History of the Church; for 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 published, 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 published, is either lost or yet undiscovered: 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 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? 'Tis well known, that most of the Eastern Bishops, though they would not be accessory to 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 charge 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 enjoined 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 expressly 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.
'Tis supposed the Reader knows, that for several Ages the Greek Churches have erroneously maintained 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.
Out of Ecclesiastical Histories, concerning such as at several times have been promoted to the Patriarchal See contrary to the Canons, the rightful Patriarchs being deposed and yet living. Amongst whom we may observe, that not one of those that were unjustly deposed, did ever separate himself from the Communion of the Church upon the account of his being deposed; provided that he, that was uncanonically promoted after him, was Orthodox. Excepting only the Case of Chrysostom, which requires a particular Consideration.
THE great John Chrysostom, a most holy and excellent person, living within the Jurisdiction of the Antiochian See, was ordained 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 the Orthodox, Eustathius [late Bishop of Sebastia] being yet [1/2] in banishment, was nevertheless because of his Orthodoxy both accepted by and beneficial to the Church. Even the great Basil was ordained Deacon by the said Meletius.
Now Chrysostom being called from Antioch, and seated upon the Throne of Constantinople, was afterwards unjustly deposed, and thrust out of the City: and after him there was consecrated Arsacius, the Brother of Nectarius, who was Patriarch there before Chrysostom. He held the Patriarchate 14 months, and, as cannot but be supposed, ordained Presbyters, Bishops, and Deacons; none of whom were rejected by the Church. After his death the Blessed Atticus was consecrated, Chrysostom being yet alive and in exile. He raised a Persecution against those that adhered to Chrysostom: and possessing the Patriarchate 20 years, was approved by the Church, both he himself, and those that he had ordained; no one being troubled or called in question upon the account of his Ordination. These things are delivered in the History of Socrates.
 From Atticus, Sisinnius, [who succeeded him] derived his Ordination; and by Sisinnius Proclus was consecrated Bishop of Cyzicus. Now if you would be certain that Atticus was owned and received 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 Chrysostom. After Sisinnius, Nestorius was placed 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 Heretic Nestorius, it received and owned all those that had been made Priests or Bishops by Arsacius, Atticus, and Sisinnius, and even by Nestorius too, provided that they professed the Orthodox faith, and confessed the Blessed Virgin to be Theotokos, or the Mother of God.
 After the Council, Maximian was consecrated Patriarch by such as had received their Ordinations from the aforesaid four Patriarchs. After him the Bl. Proclus, who derived his Ordination from the same Hands, was advanced 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 received into Communion by S. Cyril. After Proclus, by the same succession of Ordination, Flavianus obtained the Patriarchate.
See now the Succession. They that deposed Chrysostom consecrated Arsacius; the same, together with Arsacius, consecrated Atticus; Arsacius and Atticuts, 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 Authors of all the Calamities that befell Chrysostom, [4/5] being afterwards called in question by Pope Innocent, were neither deposed nor reprehended by him; the Pope leaving their punishment to God.
The Bl. Flavianus having condemned and deprived the Heretic Eutyches, the Emperor Theodosius commanded Dioscorus Patriarch of Alexandria to inspect and examine again into the matters between them. Dioscorus thereupon having called a Council at Ephesus, the second of that place, judged, condemned, deposed and murdered the B. Flavianus, contrary to all Ecclesiastical order; absolving Eutyches, and consecrating Anatolius in Flavianius's room. You see that Anatolius was consecrated contrary to the Canons, seeing it was by Dioscorus, a Murderer and a Heretic, that espoused the Cause and the Heresy 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 [5/6] Cappadocia, and, in a word, all that whole Council concurred and acted with Dioscorus in the unjust ejectment of Flavianus, and the unlawful 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 Heresy. For that Holy Synod concerned not itself about the Ordinations of Uncanonical and illegal Patriarchs, but only required 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 Emperor Marcian: That therefore he would make no inquiry about Anatolius's Consecration, because he professed the Orthodox Belief. These things are written in the Acts of the Second Council concerning Flavianus.
In the Reign of the Emperor Anastasius, when the Heresy of the Acephali was rife, the Emperor himself became addicted to it, and expelled out of the City three Patriarchs, because they refused to embrace his false Opinion, and anathematize the Fourth General Council, and communicate with Severus: the first, Euthymius; the second, Macedonius, [6/7] who succeeded him; (unlawfully indeed, but because he was an assertor of Catholic 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 Bishop of Jerusalem, embraced 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 Successor also, because of his Orthodox Faith.
The same Emperor 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 publicly preached the Orthodox Belief contrary to the Emperor'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 loved him and communicated with him, as an injured Patriarch; [7/8] and yet they communicated with John too, (that sat 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 Confessor was Patriarch of Jerusalem. Now when a Synod was called at Tyre by the Emperor 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 therefore 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 [8/9] chief of the Arian Party; but afterwards becoming a Convert to the Homoousion (or Orthodox Faith,) he was willingly received and allowed as Patriarch by the Church, and was styled, 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 Assertors of the same Faith. These things are delivered in the Life of the great Athanasius.
In the Emperor Justinian's Reign, Eutychius of Amasia, being constituted Patriarch of Constantinople, a Man holy and beloved of God, was unjustly deposed and expelled the City, and John was preferred to the See. But Eutychius did not upon that account separate himself from the Communion of John; and both therefore were received by the Church.
In the same Emperor's time, Anthimus Bp. of Trebisond was translated to the See of Constantinople. He being discovered to be an Heretic, was deposed by Pope Agapetus; who set up in his place the most holy Menas: But his Ordinations were allowed of, as valid.
 Afterwards, when the Heresy 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 supposed, ordained and consecrated many: Not one so ordained or consecrated, provided he relinquished and anathematized his Heresy, was rejected by the Church; but all were received by the sixth General Council, and by George, Patriarch of Constantinople.
The Emperor Justinian, surnamed Rhinotmetus, coming the second time to the Throne, deposed and banished unjustly the most holy Patriarch Callinicus, and placed 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 ordained, were received by the Church.
Artemius, otherwise named Anastasius, being advanced to the Imperial Throne, upon the death of the Patriarch of Constantinople, constituted in [10/11] his place the most holy Germanus Bp. of Cyzicus.
The 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 called, 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 Heresy, were received by that Council.
Now in the time of this holy Tarasius there happened that which follows. Constantine, then Emperor, after he had put away his lawful Wife, and shut her up in a Nunnery, against her will, espoused another, that had her self [11/12] been a Nun; and so became, according to the express Declaration of the Adulterer. Upon this the refusing to officiate in so unlawful a Marriage, Joseph, the Steward of the Church, was so hardy as to perform the Office, and rendered himself thereby obnoxious to deprivation. The Patriarch attempting to deprive him, was deterred by the Emperor, who declared that, if Joseph was ejected, he would set up the Heresy of the Iconomachi again; which forced 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 Emperor too: from the Emperor, as being Adulterer; from the Church, because it received Joseph, the Confirmer of that adulterous Match: And upon that account, he suffered a thousand Injuries from the Emperor. 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; [12/13] 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 deposed, and Nicephorus the Treasurer usurps the Throne, and Tarasius dies, and the holy Patriarch Nicephorus succeeds him: He constrains the Emperor to receive Joseph again, who Tarasius had deprived. Upon which Theodorus a second time withdraws from t he Church. A while after, that Emperor 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 approved 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; [13/14] 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 received 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 the Studium that refused to join in Communion with the Catholic Church; If they repent and come over to the Catholic Church, and renounce their Schism, let them be received as barely Christians, but by no means be advanced 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, [14/15] 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 Catholic 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 Heresy; 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 relinquished 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 [15/16] 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 Emperors. But after the death of Theophilus, his Wife the blessed Theodora, together with a Synod, placed the holy Methodius in the See; who was succeeded by the great Ignatius.
Then Michael reigning with his Mother Theodora, was, together with her, corrupted, and was therefore sharply reproved by the holy Ignatius, and excluded the Communion of the Church: Caesar therefore, being able to do what he pleased by his Imperial power, deposed and banished Ignatius, and established 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 wondered at. For if Photius was deposed 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 [17/18] 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 persuade 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 persuade 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 possessed of the Imperial Sceptre, deprived 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 owned and received by her. So that thus she speaks (in her Diptychs) May the [18/19] memory of Ignatius, Photius and Stephanus, the most holy Patriarchs, be everlasting.
The same Emperor Leo, surnamed the Philosopher, ejected the most rightful Patriarch Nicolaus, a Man renowned for his Orthodoxy, out of the See; because he refused to consent to his fourth Marriage; and opposed him earnestly in his design of making it lawful to marry the fourth time; and yet to continue in government, though in his room he advanced Euthymius, who was Syncellus's or Nicolaus's Assessor. Here observe again, that the Patriarch Nicolaus did not separate himself from the Catholic 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 rejecting, 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 advanced 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 borne 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, pres toward him, to strike him, but was stopped by some body. Let [20/21] 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 killed 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 (Theotokos) appeared to him, and bid him prefer Leontius, who was called Theotokites from that occasion. Soon after not liking this Leontius neither, he again avers the Blessed Virgin had appeared 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 [21/22] satisfaction, Dositheus also is ejected, and another put in his place. So in the space of nine years, that Isaacius reigned he made five Patriarchs successively: By whom, as must needs be supposed, there were many persons ordained. And from them the whole order of Priesthood and all the Church is brought down to our days. And 'tis 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 another's 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 deposed; but as for other Complaints and Accusations, that ever and anon were made upon such Promotions, except it were Heresy, she never made any strict examination into them.
This TREATISE: Being an Account, in short, of such Patriarchs as at several times have been unjustly deposed by the Emperors, yet did not separate themselves from the Communion of their lawful Successors, nor persuade the People to do so, because the Successors were Orthodox.
In Arcadius's Reign the great Chrysostom was unjustly deposed: his Successors were Arsacius, and the divine Atticus.
In Theodosius Junior's time the holy Flavianus was deposed by the Heretic Dioscorus: his Successor was Anatolius.
In Anastasius's Reign, Euthymius was deposed: his Successor was Macedonius; and his, Timotheus.
 In the same Reign Elias, Bishop of Jerusalem, was deposed: his Successor was John.
In the Reign of Constantine the Great, Maximius, Bishop of Jerusalem, was deposed by the Bishop of Cesarea in Palestine: his Successor was Cyrill.
In the Reign of Justinian, Eutychius of Amasia, Patriarch of C. P. was deposed: his Successor was John.
In the same Reign, Anthimus, once Bishop of Trebisond, then Patriarch of C. P. was deposed: his Successor was the most holy Menas.
In the Reign of Justinianus Rhinotmetus, Callinicus was deposed: his Successor was Cyrus, a Recluse of Amastris.
In the Reign of Michael, the Son of Theophilus, the great Ignatius was deposed: his Successour was Photius.
In the Reign of Basilius Macedo, Photius, the Successor of Ignatius, was deposed: he [24/25] was succeeded by the foresaid Ignatius; and Ignatius again by him.
In the Reign of Leo the Philosopher, Photius was again deposed, 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 deposed: his Successor was Euthymius the Syncellus.
In the Reign of Alexander the Brother of Leo, Euthymius the Successor of Nicolaus was deposed, and Nicolaus again restored.
In the Emperor Manuel's Reign, Cosmas Atticus was deposed, and succeeded by Theodosius.
In the Reign of Isaacius Angelus, Basilius Camaterus was deposed, and succeeded by the Chaplain Nicetas Mundanes.
Under the same Emperor Nicetas was deposed, and succeeded by Leontius Theoticites.
 In the same Reign, Leontius Theoticites was deposed, and succeeded by Dositheus B. of Jerusalem.
In the same Reign, Dositheus likewise was deposed, and succeeded by Georgius Xiphilinus.