The same Apology might have been made, and in justice should have been made, for Nicholas, one of the Seven Deacons. For though some of the Ancients lay the doctrine of the Nicolaitans to his charge; yet, as I shew in one of the preceding Books,* a great many others, particularly, Clemens Alexandrinus, Eusebius, Theodoret, and St. Austin excuse him, and say, the doctrine was none of his but only taken up by those, who pretended to be his followers, groundupon some mistaken words of his, which had no such meaning.

But I pass over this to our Author's Account of the Acephali; "who, he says, were an headless kind of heretics, who owned neither bishop, priest, nor sacrament, like our modern Quakers." I know not what grounds our author had for this: for he never cites any particular writer throughout his whole Index: but I know Alexander Rosse said the same before him; and he is one of this gentleman's learned authors. I know also that some Popish Writers† object it to the Lutherans, that they are like the old Acephali, because they have no bishops, for their leaders and I am apt to think, Alexander Rosse took it, right or wrong, from some of those Popish Writers. But Alexander has the misfortune to contradict himself: for he says in the very same breath, That Severus, Bishop, of Alexandria (he meant Antioch) was author of this Sect of Acephali, under Anastasius the Emperor, An. 462. And that they were called also Theodosians from Theodosius their chief patron, and Bishop of Alexandria. Strange indeed! That they should have bishops for their authors and patrons, and yet be without bishop, priest, or sacrament among them! Our author was aware of this rock, and had the wit to avoid it: and there

*Book XXII. chap. i. sect. 2. † See Mason's Defence of the Ordination of Ministers beyond seas, p. 129. Oxon 1641.

fore here he fairly and wisely dropped his guide, and left him to shift for himself with his contradictions; telling us the first part of the story, but not the latter, which would have spoiled his parallel between the Acephali and the Quakers. But how would he make out, if he was pressed hard to it, that the Acephali had no Bishops, or were named headless, from the want of such heads among them? For my part, I never met with any ancient writer that gave this account of them. Liberatus says,* they were called Acephali, because they would not receive the doctrine of Cyril of Alexandria, nor follow him as their head, nor yet any other. But these were bishops, who would neither take Cyril Patriarch of Alexandria, nor John Patriarch of Antioch for their head, and were therefore called Acephali, because they would follow neither patriarch as their leader. For as those bishops were called Autocephali, who had no patriarch above them, but were a sort of patriarchs themselves, and independent of any other: so those bishops, who were subject to patriarchs, and withdrew their obedience from them, were called Acephali, because they were no heads or patriarchs themselves, and yet refused to be subject to any other, Patriarchs were then heads of the bishops, as bishops were heads of the people; and these are quite different things; for bishops to be called Acephali, because they rejected their patriarch, and people to be called Acephali because they had neither bishop, nor priest, nor sacrament among them. I am not fond of defending ancient heretics, but I think all men ought to have justice done them, and not be charged with more heresies than they were really guilty of. It is allowed on all sides, that these Acephali were Eutychians and enemies of the Council of Chalcedon; and as such Leontiust also writes against

* Liberat. Breviar. cap. 9. Hos esse puto Authores Acephalorum, qui neque Cyrillum habent caput, neque quem sequantur ostendunt.

+ Leont. de Sectis. Action. 7. Bibl. Patr. Gr. Lat. tom. i. p. 522.

them: but he says not a word of their being without bishops, priests or sacraments: and therefore it lies upon our Author to produce some ancient voucher, better than Alexander Rosse, for the charge he brings against them.

I insist not on his little grammatical error in his account of the Saccophori, "Who," he says, "were a branch of the Encratites, so called because they carried a long bag, to make the people believe they led a penitent life." They were indeed a particular sect of the Manichees, who are condemned under that name in several laws of the Theodosian code,* where the several branches of the Manichees are proscribed under the distinguishing names of Solitarii, Encratitæ, Apotactitæ, Hydroparastatæ and Saccofori, which names they assumed to shelter themselves against the severity of former laws made against the Manichees under the name of Manichees only. But now these Manichean Saccophori were not so called from carrying a long bag, but from wearing sackcloth, and affecting to appear with it in public. Saccus, indeed, will signify a sack or a bag, as well as sackcloth: but what has a long bag to do with a penitent life? It is fitter to describe a philosopher than a penitent: but sackcloth and a penitent life will consist very well together. However the Church did not allow any to affect this garb, though some monks, like the Manichees, were very fond of it, and loved to appear publicly with chains or crosses about their necks, and walked barefoot, and wore sackcloth, out of mere singularity and affectation: who are therefore often severely censured for these things by the ancients, Epiphanius, St. Austin, St. Jerom, Palladius and Cassian, as I have shewn more fully in another place. But I never heard of any, either monks or heretics, censured for carrying a long bag, as an indication

*Cod. Theod. Lib. 16. Tit. 5. de Hæreticis, leg. 7, 9, 11. + Book VII. chap. iii. n. 6.

of a penitent life: and I am of opinion, this gentleman, when he considers it again, will reckon this such another slip as Index Hæreticus; which are but small failings in comparison of what I have now further to object against his Index, which turns Catholics into Heretics in several instances both of former and later ages.

Among the ancients he does great injustice to Eustathius, the famous Bishop of Antioch. For in giving an account of the Eustathian Heretics, he says, "The Eustathians were the spawn of the Sabellian heresy, and had their name from Eustathius Bishop of Antioch, who was deposed in a council held in his own city, about the middle of the Fourth Century, for holding those principles." I take no notice of his parachronism in saying, that he was deposed in the Council of Antioch about the middle of the Fourth Century: for though we cannot well call the year 327 or 329, when that Council was held, the middle of the Fourth Century; yet this is but a small mistake, into which he might easily be led by Baronius or the corrupt copies of Athanasius and St. Jerom, which place that Council in the reign of Constantius, instead of Constantine, as the best critics, Valesius,* Gothofred,† Pagi,‡ and Dr. Cave, || are fully agreed; and as appears plainly from all the historians, Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret, and Philostorgius. But the thing, I complain of, is this, that he makes this Eustathius a Sabellian, and his followers a spawn of the Sabellian heresy. Whereas, in truth, he was the great defender of the Catholic faith against the Arian heresy in the Council of Nice: the Council itself translated him from Beræa to Antioch; and he was the first man that opened the Council with a panegyrical oration to Constantine; as this Author, for

→ Vales. Annot. ad Euseb. de Vit. Const. lib. iii. cap. 59. + Gothofred. Dissert. in Philostorg. lib. ii. cap. 7. in Baron. an. 327. n. 3. & 340. n. 18. P. 189.

VOL. VII.

Pagi. Critic

Cave. Histor. Literar. vol. i.

b

getting himself, fairly owns in his account of the Eight General Councils, p. 476. Athanasius gives him this character, that he was a noble confessor and orthodox in the faith, Tv Tisu voeßns, and exceeding zealous for the truth.* How then could he be a Sabellian, unless Sabellianism was the true faith, and Athanasius a Sabellian also? To open this matter a little further, and undeceive this gentleman and his readers also: this Eustathius was only abused in his character out of spite and malice by the Arians, who were his implacable enemies, because he was a resolute defender of the Nicene faith against them. They therefore endeavoured to make him odious, by falsely charging him with Sabellianism, and several other crimes, upon the strength of which calumnies they deposed him in one of their own Councils at Antioch. Socratest and Sozomen say expressly, that this Council of Antioch was an Arian Council that deposed Eustathius, upon a pretence, that he was more a defender of the Sabellian doctrine, than of the Nicene faith. Which was an usual trick of the Arians, whereby they endeavoured to undermine Athanasius also. Now this being only a mere calumny and slander of so great a man, imposed upon him by his professed enemies, the Arians, it does not become any one, who takes upon him to give unlearned readers an account of the ancient heresies, to fix this character upon him, without giving some authority, or at least an intimation, that he was deposed only in an Arian Council. I do not suppose this gentleman had any ill design in what he wrote about this matter; but he was either imposed upon by some modern historian, or did not sufficiently consider what he found delivered by ancient writers. Which should make him the more cautious for the future what guides he follows, and learn to

*Athanas. Epist. ad Solitarios. t. i. p. 812. Sozom. lib. 2. cap. 19.

cap. 24.

+ Socrat. lib. 1.