always profest a great and due regard for the general Practice of the Ancients I must not conclude before I have told you as I promis'd you what Schism thâ—â— was which was rais'd upon the account of Iosephus 〈◊〉 Presbyter which as appears by Cotelerius's Copy was the occasion of the writing our Treatise You must know Sir in short that in the Year 1266. Arsenius the Patr. of CP was depos'd by a Synod whereof the Emp. Michael Palaeologus sat President partly for certain Crimes of which he was accus'd but chiefly for Contumacy in refusing to give his Appearance He knew that the Emperour was his Enemy and therefore he pleaded that 't was contrary to the Canons for Him to sit Judge in the Cause of a Bishop The Synod a very great one both acknowleg'd and asserted the Emperour's Authority and alleg'd it was agreeable both to Reason and the Practice of the Ancients Germanus Bishop of Adrianople who was put into Arsenius's Place resigning after a few Months Iosephus the Emperour's Confessor and an Abbot was advanc'd to that Honour Hence a rose a famous Schism amongst the Monks and the Common-people some adhering to Arsenius as unjustly Depriv'd others being averse to Iosephus because they lookt upon him to have been formerly Excommunicated by 〈…〉 and others pretending other Reasons I said Amongst the Monks and Common people for Pachymeres assures us tho' a Friend and Well-wisher to Arsenius that in all the Church there were but Three Bishops that engag'd in the Schism viz. those of Alexandria Thessalonica and Sâ—ndiâ— Of whom the two last word the especial Friends and Creatures of Arsenius Neither did those Bishops make a Schism because another Bishop was put into Arsenius's Place whilst he was alive for they presently began it as it plainly appears from Pachymeres as soon as Arsenius was depriv'd before his Place was fill'd up that is they withdrew from the Communion not of the Church in general but onely of those Bishops that Depriv'd Him so Pachymeres expresly says of the Bishop of Alexandria Those Persons that refus'd to Communicate with Iosephus upon the Account of Arsenius's Deprivation the Author of our Treatise endeavours to convince by shewing by many Examples of Bishops unjustly Depriv'd part of them by Synods and part by the Emperour alone how contrary it was to the Practice of the Ancients to violate the Peace of the Church on the account of such unjust or uncanonical Deprivations Being now assur'd what Schism that was that occasion'd the writing of our Treatise we cannot any longer be ignorant of the true Age of the Author It cannot reasonably be doubted but that our Treatise was written about the beginning of the Schism and of Iosephus's Patriarchate viz. in the Year 1267 for Iosephus was consecrated Patriarch the First of Ianuary 126â— as may castly be shewn tho' Petrus Possinus would have it to be a Year later This at least is apparent that 〈…〉 which happen'd on the last of Sept. 1273. for it plainly appears from the Treatise that the Patriarch for whose sake the Schism was rais'd was alive when the Treatise was writ It may further be gather'd out of the Sixth Book of Nicephorus Gregoras that this Schism lasted no longer than the Year 1275 for he tells us the manner how it was ended just after he had spoken of Gregorius Georgius Cyprius's being promoted to the Patriarchate and before he speaks of the Patriarch Veccus's Banishment which happen'd both on the foresaid Year Here Sir I must retract what I formerly conjectur'd tho very doubtingly in my Preface to the Gr. and Lat. Edition concerning Nicephorus Callisti his being the Author of our Treatise For from what has been said it is manifest that the Author of our Treatise was older than Nicephorus Callisti For Nicephorus was not full 36. Years old when he publisht his Eccl. History and yet when he publisht it Andronicus the Emperour Son to the abovesaid Michael Pal. who died in the Year 1327. near 70. Years of Age was a very Old Man as he plainly declares in his Dedication There needs no Argument to confirm so clear a Demonstration Yet others may be produc'd as that which we our selves formerly urg'd in the foresaid Preface as an Objection against the Conjecture we had made that the Author of our Treatise ranks the Patriarchs of CP that govern'd in the time of the Emp. Isaacius Angelus in this Order Basilius Nicetas Leontius Dositheus Xiphilinus But Nicephorus in a MS. Catalogue of the Patriarchs of CP thus Basilius Nicetas Dositheus Leontius Dositheus agen Xiphilinus To which may be added that the Predecessor of Macedonius that was depos'd by the Emp. Anastasius is by Nicephorus both in his Catalogue and in his Hist. nam'd Euphemius as the more ancient Writers are wont to call him but by the Author of our Treatise Euthymius I once thought that this was onely an Error of the Librarian tho he be so call'd in Three places but since I have observ'd that by the more Modern Greeks he was usually so nam'd He is so call'd likewise by Cedrenus Metaphrastes Theophanes the Eighth General Council Act VI. and by others I was here Sir about to subscribe a Vale and I thought on nothing but to ease you of your poring on an ill Hand and on sending away these Papers to the Coach But casting my Eyes a Second time on your Letter I found that through Hast I had overlookt your Postscript in which you mention an Empty and Scurrilous Pamphlet call'd The Oxford Antiquity Examin'd and are pleas'd to ask me this Question whether or no I design to Answer it I do not wonder Sir you should so far forget that Pamphlet when you wrote your Letter as to throw it down to a Postscript I rather wonder you should ever mind it at all but above all I wonder how you came to be so far forgetful of the Humour of your old Acquaintance as to ask me that Question How often have you heard me say That I hate to strâ—kâ— on a Thing that is Hollow and Empty which can onely return Noise The Author of that Pamphlet is too much a Felo de se to need the Hand of an Adversary How excellently does he infer from one or two Mistakes which he endeavours to discover in our Treatise that all the rest is nothing but Error and Blunder An incomparable Ergo A rare Logician How pleasant is it to observe to what sorry Shifts our Second-hand-Writer is reduc'd where he speaks of the Authority of St. Chrysostom But I must not say How pleasant It moves Pity in one to see to what Pain he is put by that Weight that lies upon his Head what Turns and Twists he makes how the poor Creature wrigles and tosses his Tail up and down And all to as little purpose as a Bird on a Lime-twig the more it flutters the more it is caught No wonder he is so hugely in Wrath and falls so foul upon
That that same Council consisted of so many Bishops as to be call'd by Balsamon the learned Patriarch of Antioch 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a General Council And thus much Sir for our Canons The next thing I observe in your Letter is what you tell me concerning a very learned and elaborate Answer which you say is ready to be publisht and very much talkt on against the Oxford Antiquity As for that Sir It is no News to Me and no more than I ever expected You know there must somewhat be said That 's a Business of course And Schism is a Thing of so ugly and horrid an Aspect that it is not a Wonder if They that have rashly espous'd it think fit to give it a Paint tho all the World knows It is not its Natural Colour and it plainly appears to be Dawbing We have been now so Civil and Gentile to our Adversaries as to clean our selves of that Dirt which they themselves cast upon us before We are to enter upon the Struggle You may tell 'em Sir We are ready and prepar'd to close-in whensoever they please to come on We are not Concern'd at what you say That They are Great Men Men of War from their Youth For what avail the greatest Abilities what avails the strongest Confederacy when a Cause is not capable of Defence What avails a great deal of Strength when like Milo they are caught in an Oak It is not Sir to be admir'd that they that are engag'd in this Schism are so little mov'd and perswaded by the many Examples of those Great and Excellent Bishops which the Oxford Antiquity presents ' em You cannot but know of whom it was that St. Ierom uses those Words I know very well their Temper that 't is easier to conquer 'em than to perswade ' em 'T was you know the Luciferian Schismaticks of whom he speaks so And St. Augustine I remember makes Complaint of Emeritus the Champion of the Schismatical Donatists that tho in the Conference between 'em he was so far Confounded as not to have a Word to say yet he still continu'd in his Schism as if He himself had been Conquerour As it is a particular Complexion and a great and strong Temptation of either Resentment or Ambition or the tickling Satisfaction of being at the Head of a Party that must hurry a Man on to so great a Sin as a Schism so it must be a peculiar Grace that reduces one It is not your carrying a Light that will make a Man follow you not the shewing him the Road that will make him go right unless he has a Will to be directed It is therefore I say no matter at all of Wonder if those many Examples and Authorities of the Oxford Antiquity have not met with that agreeable success which a Man unconcern'd might very well have expected And when I tell ye We are ready to assert and defend that Doctrine which our Treatise advances against all the Opposition which our Adversaries threaten We are far from engaging to open a way for it to our Adversaries Hearts That I fear is scarce to be expected more especially of those whose Pens are now engag'd in the Defence of their Schism For they be Writing still make make it more hard to be convinc'd and suck like the Orator of old a fatal Poison out of their own Pens In short Sir I must tell ye The Place before which we ly has to Me no other Appearance you will pardon Sir the youthful Comparison but that of a Castle Enchanted and I shall not pretend to be so Romantick a Champion as to force it to a Surrender Tho we know all the Arms it can possibly make use off are very Weak and Insignificant tho the Walls that look towards us are extreamly thin and without any manner of Foundation Whatsoever our Weapons may be or our strength and dexterity in using 'em There is still a SPIRIT within that will keep it from being taken Yet this I shall dare to pretend to I shall dare engage to discover the Weakness of the Place and to Throw up such Works round about it as may hinder like a Circle the Sallies of the Obstinate Spirit and secure all those that are yet without from the Charms it may lay upon ' em That We may not run on and mispend our Time and Abuse the Patience of our Readers by Discourses not properly pertinent and close to the Matter depending When you meet with any of our Learned Adversaries the Emeriti of this Schism who you say are publishing an Answer to our Treatise and writing a Defence of their Revolt Be pleas'd Sir to 〈…〉 desire 'em to demonstrate if they can the Two general Propositions which follow 1. That the Civil Government has not any Authority in it self to deprive a Bishop of his Bishoprick who refuses to own it and to submit to it And here they are desired to consider that the Civil Power or the Temporal Governors are no less of God's own Institution than Bishops or the Governors of the Church that both are equally Iure Divino with this onely difference that the former are instituted by God for our Peace and Happiness here in this World the latter to conduct us to Happiness in that which is to come That the Secular Government is antecedent to the Spiritual That when Christ came into the world to establish a Church he came not to abolish any Law that was necessary for the support of the Secular Government not to set up a Church that was any ways opposite to it But that he himself submitted to the Secular Government which he found establisht and commanded his Followers to do so That after his Death the Apostles likewise did so and commanded likewise all their Followers and Successors to do the same to submit to the Temporal Power as the Ordinance of God It is plain that our Saviour by establishing a Church intended the establishment of such things onely as might well consist with the Safety and the Essentials of Government From hence it follows that none has receiv'd any Power or Commission from Christ to preach the Gospel or to preside over the Church in any Country but with this Supposition and on this Condition that he own and submit to the Temporal Government which God has ordained in that Country It is I say with this Supposition That he gives his Bishops and his Ministers a Commission to preside over the Church and to preach his Gospel in such or such a Country It is upon the same Condition that the Church appoints 'em to preside or preach in that Place and it is upon the same Condition that they are receiv'd allow'd off and protected by the State If therefore they fail of the Performance of that necessary Condition their Commission then ceases as to that particular Government which they cannot or will not submit to They become Deprivable by the State and the Church is to
as refus'd to submit to his Government And therefore tho they defer'd the Election of a new Bishop for above Sixteen Months for fear of the Emperour who then resided ar Rome Propter rerum temporum difficultates as the Clergy tell St. Cyprian in a Letter yet as soon as the Emperour was engag'd in a Civil War and had therefore remov'd from that City they set about an Election and plac'd Cornelius in the Chair This Principle will secure Religion from depending on the Will of a Governour no less than that of our Adversaries who would have Bishops to be Deprivable onely by Bishops That likewise may have its ill Consequences for what if those Bishops who are suppos'd to Deprive another should themselves be Heretical or no true Friends to the Church This Rule is still to be observ'd that neither the Civil nor the Ecclesiastical Power may so far usurp upon one another as to lessen that Authority which is necessary for the Subsistence of Each Where on either side their Pretensions exceed their due Bounds there all there Authority ceases We must neither erect a Protestant Popedom nor yet an Erastian Kingdom Not so interpret one Text as make it fall out with another There is as in other Things so likewise in this a sort of an Analogy of Faith As they both proceed from God so they cannot in their own Natures disagree in the least Neither must there such Maxims be advanc'd as may make 'em wage War with one another So to order the Temporal Government as not to have Regard to the Spiritual is Prophaness Irreligion and Atheism and to lay down such Rules in Favour of the Spiritual as that it may Top upon the Temporal is no less a Crime than it is a Vanity In a Word He cannot give to God all the Things that areGods that does not give to Cesar the Things that are Cesars Ob. 2. But it is not in the power of the Civil Government to take away that which it could not give the Orders and Character of a Bishop Answ. This Objection supposes that when a Bishop is depriv'd of his particular Bishoprick his Orders are taken away and he is not any longer a Bishop If the thing be so look they to it who refuse to submit to the Civil Government which God has set over ' em It appears from what has been said that our Saviour has given no Commission to exercise the Office of a Bishop in such a particular Place but to such as submit to the Government of that Country in which they reside and if they are not Bishops but in that one Place where first they were design'd to preside if they have not I say any larger Commission then whenever they refuse to acknowledge the Civil Government their whole Commission is void and they are not any longer Bishops They are not depriv'd of their Orders by the Civil Power but their Commission which they receiv'd from Christ to exercise the Office of a Bishop in that particular Place is of it self void as being given only on Condition as soon as they appear to be Enemies to the Government and are so declar'd Look they I say to that But it is not our opinion that a Bishop is utterly Degraded whensoever he is justly Depriv'd Neither is it agreeable to the Notions and Practice of our Church For if the Character of a Bishop does depend upon the having a Bishoprick how can a Bishop remain a Bishop after Resignation How can he be restor'd after lawful Deprivation without a new Ordination How can he be translated without a new Ordination from one Bishoprick to another if when he was Ordain'd he was only Ordain'd to this or that particular Bishoprick How can he Ordain or do the Offices of a Bishop out of his own Diocess If the People of his City or Diocess should be all destroy'd by Wars or be utterly disperst and lost how can he remain invested with the Character of a Bishop And as it is not agreeable to the Doctrine and Practice of our Church so neither to the general Notions and Practice of the Ancients as shall easily and plainly be made out as soon as Occasion is given At present it will be enough to remind you of what is above observ'd concerning St. Chrysostom Tho it be not my Design at present to enter upon the Authority of the Antients yet I cannot forbear to take notice of a very strange Weakness of Judgment for so I must call it which Lucifer Calaritanus has discover'd in his Books to the Emp. Constantius in behalf of St. Athanasius He affirms amongst other things that another Bishop ought not to be put into St. Athanasius's Place as was done at that time because Athanasius was living By which he seems to intimate that a Bishop could not be at all Depriv'd but his meaning is that he could not be Depriv'd by the Emperor So he says But how does he prove it He does not pretend to Tradition or to lay it down as the Doctrine of the Ancients but so he thinks fit to say as being too angry to allow the Prince any Prerogative and he proves it from hence that Ioshuah did not succeed Moses till Moses was dead What a strange Demonstration that is Yet so bad as it is it holds as well against a Deprivation by Bishops and likewise against a Deprivation by the People of the Diocess which Lucifer himself in another place owns to be lawful as against a Deprivation by the Prince and so bad as it is it is full as good as a great many other Arguments which are urg'd from the Scripture by that over Passionat tho Orthodox Bishop It is true that the Emperor did very ill in turning out St. Athanasius unjustly and in putting a Heretick into his Place This we know It is likewise true that our Author deserv'd very well for his Zeal against the Arian Hereticks But this however I must say that he manages the Cause with much more Heat and Irreverence than Iudgment We may dare to affirm he had no great stock of the latter And it is not at all to be wonder'd at that He afterwards prov'd a Schismatick T is further alleg'd by the same Author against the said Persecuting Emperor that instead of being a Judge in the Cause of a Bishop he ought by the Law of God to be Condemn'd to Death for not submitting to the Doctrin of the Catholick Bishops And this he proves from that place in Deuteronomy where God commands that they that did not obey the Priests should be put to death tho the Text be no other than this Deut. 17.12 And the Man that will do presumptuously and will not hearken unto the Priest that standeth to minister there before the Lord thy God nor unto the Judge even that man shall dy and thou shalt put away the evil from Israel After all I must add That the Cruelty of that Emperor Constantius to the Catholick
Bishops may be pleaded to excuse both Lucifer who himself suffer'd Banishment and also some other Bishops of that Age who were so far provok'd as to deny that the Emperor had any Authority at all over Bishops For as Solomon says Oppression maketh a Wise man mad Here Sir it comes into my mind what you mention in your Letter concerning St. Cyprian That there 's nothing more usual with the Advocates for the New Separation than to plead upon all Occasions the Authority of that excellent Father 'T is Sir a merry Question that which you are pleas'd to ask me Whether ever He wrote a Treatise by way of Prophecy for the Cause of our Adversaries One would think so you say by the Confidence and Triumph of those that are wont to quote him I shall answer you Sir in short but with a great deal of Seriousness that there is not a Word in St. Cyprian that makes a Whit for their Cause I will give you according to your Desire a particular account of the meaning of all those Passages which you say are usually alleg'd and of the Occasion why they were written You will then see that even the greatest and learnedest men for such you tell me some of the Quoters of St. Cyprian are are in some respects no better than the Many that when they are drowning and sinking they will catch at Straws no less than other People The Words which you say are commonly quoted by our Adversaries out of St. Cyprian are 1. That a Bishop cannot be judg'd by another but that Christ alone who set him over the Church has power to judge of his Actions These Words are in St. Cyprian's Preface to the Synod of Carthage The Occasion of them was this There was a Controversy between St. Cyprian and Pope Stephanus of Rome concerning the Rebaptizing of such as had been Baptiz'd by Hereticks or Schismaticks St. Cyprian and the Synod were for it But they would not they say take upon 'em to Anathematize those Bishops that did not agree with 'em in that Matter but would leave it to them to act according to their Judgments and would let the Matter alone to be fully determin'd by Christ at the Day of Judgment he being the proper Judge of the Actions of Bishops in a Thing of that Nature 2. That a Bishop ought not to be prescrib'd to in the ordering of the Affairs of his Church but that he is to govern according to his own Judgment and to give an account of his Actions to God These Words are spoken on the same occasion and in the same sense in a Letter to Pope Stephanus wherein he gives him an account of what had been Decreed by the Synod of Carthage They are spoken likewise upon another but a like Occasion in his Epistle to Magnus who had sent to know hisJudgment concerning such Persons as being converted to the Faith in the time of Sickness were Baptiz'd by Sprinkling onely Whether they ought to be lookt upon as perfect Christians He resolves him in the Affirmative but with a great deal of Modesty And he leaves it to other Bishops to act according to their Judgments He would not judge another that should not agree with him in it And likewise in his Epistle to Antonianus where he says That some of the Bishops of Africa before his Time thought it unlawful to re-admit into the Church a Person excommunicated for Adultery but they did not however pretend to condemn other Bishops that were of a different Opinion and who practis'd accordingly As also in an Epistle to Cornelius Bishop of Rome wherein he complains that some of his Factious Presbyters who had been condemn'd by the Bishops of his Province were fled to Rome to have their Cause heard by Cornelius when as he says it was contrary to the Constitutions of the Church and likewise to reason and equity that a Cause should be try'd in any other Province but that where the Crime was committed and that the Bishops of that Province are to give an account of their Actions to God and not to other Bishops 3. That a Bishop has Deum solum judicem and Deo soli debet se judici These are not the Words of St. Cyprian but of the Clergy of Rome in their Answer to him concerning the Receiving of the Lapsi into the Church In which they applaud his Modesty in writing to them for their Judgments when he was not at all oblig'd but had power as a Bishop to act in a thing of that nature according to his own judgment and was bound to give an account of his Actions in that Affair to God alone not to any other Church 4. That all Acts of the Church ought to proceed from Bishops These Words are gather'd out of the 33. Epistle to the Lapsi Wherein he complains of the boldness of some factious Presbyters of his who had taken upon 'em in the time of his Retirement to admit the Lapsi to Communion by their own Authority without consulting him and in writing to him had pretended to write in the name of the Church He briskly asserts the Authority of Bishops he tells 'em that the Church consists in the Bishop the Clergy and the People and that in the Receiving of the Lapsi into the Church it was necessary there should be the concurrence of the Bishop who had the power committed to him of Binding and Loosing 5. That it is an extream Insolence to pretend to pass judgment on a Bishop This he says with relation to private Persons who pretend so to judge their Bishop as to leave his Communion if they think him unworthy to govern in the Church He writes it to Pupianus a Confessor who upon the account of some very ill things which St. Cyprian's Adversaries had maliciously accus'd him off as committed before he was a Bishop had withdrawn himself from his Communion 6. That to make ones self the Judge of a Bishop is to pretend to judge God himself What he has to this purpose is in the foresaid Epistle to Pupianus and upon the foresaid occasion He tells him that God who according to the Scripture extends his Providence even to Sparrows does in a particular manner concern himself in the Election of a Bishop and therefore since himself was duly Elected Pupianus took upon him to oppose the Iudgment of God in pretending to judge him unworthy Lastly That a Bishop that invades another's See is no Bishop Et cum post primum secundus esse non possit quisquis post unum qui solus esse debeat factus est non jam secundus ille sed nullus est What is this to our Case He speaks those words concerning Novatianus who had violently invaded the See of Pope Cornelius a good and innocent Man one that had never been Depriv'd for any Fault and who never refus'd to acknowledge the Emperour's Authority Our new Bishops are not secundi but
soli since the old Ones are Legally Depriv'd I must here observe that among all the Fathers there is no one speaks more for the Concurrence and Consent of the Laity in Matters relating to the ordering and governing of the Church than our Author St. Cyprian He declares in many places that he would not do any thing in this or that Matter relating to the Church till he had consulted both his Clergy and Laity as particularly in the Case of the Lapsi And he thinks it not onely convenient but necessary for a Bishop to do so For He together with his Synod call Therapius a Bishop to account and severely reprimand him for presuming to admit into the Church a Presbyter that had laps'd without the Consent of the Laity From this Example it is further observable that tho St. Cyprian speaks so much for the Equality of Bishops and that they are not responsable to one another for what they do as Bishops as in the Case of the Lapsi yet neither his own nor the general practice of his Age did truly agree with what he says By what Authority did St. Cyprian and his Synod pretend to call Therapius to account a Bishop as well as themselves How could they pretend to have Power to turn that Presbyter again out of the Church as they plainly intimate they had They deriv'd you will say this Authority from the Consent of the Church So Patriarchs Metropolitans Arch-Bishops are set over Bishops by the Consent of the Church tho' by Christ's Institution all Bishops are equal Query Whether the Consent of the Church of England were there nothing else to be alleg'd be not enough to justify a Lay-Deprivation If a Patriarch or Metropolitan can Deprive a Bishop by the Authority of the Church why may not a Lay-Iudge do the like I shall close this Discourse concerning the Authority of that Father with that Question or Expostulation which I find in St. Augustine his 48 Ep. to Vinâ—entius the Rogatist a Sect of the Schismatical Donatists who had laid a great deal of Stress on the Authority of that Father for the Doctrin of Re-Baptism If you are delighted says he and so say I to our Adversaries with the Authority of the holy Bishop and glorious Martyr Cyprianus which we do not hold to be equal to the Authority of Scripture why do you not imitate him in this that he held Communion with the Catholick Church spread over all the world and defended the Vnity of it by his Writings In the same Epistle having quoted that place of St. Cyprian where he praises those African Bishops that refus'd to re-admit Adulterers into the Church yet did not break the Peace of the Church and separate from those that were of a different Opinion he adds what likewise we may well say to our Quoters of St. Cyprian What say you to this Brother Vincentius You see that this Man this peaceful Bishop and most valiant Martyr was not more concern'd for any thing than least the bond of Vnity should be broken As the Authority of the Civil Power of which we have hitherto spoken is agreeable to Principles and Reason so likewise is it to the Practice and Sentiments of the antient Church To make this appear and to put an End if it be possible to this Controversy I shall present you when occasion is given with A History of that Authority viz. of the Civil Power over Ecclesiastical Persons as well in Depriving as in otherwise punishing throughout all ages more especially that of the first Christian Emperour I shall treat concerning that Matter with all the Fairness and Impartiality that becomes a faithful Historian and a real Lover of Truth concealing nothing that may seem to make for the Cause of our Adversaries Yet this I shall demonstrat that tho in the time of Constantius some persecuted Bishops were pleas'd to deny that the Emperour had any Autority at all over Bishops yet the Emperour Constantine himself so great a Lover and Honorer of Bishops as he was and likewise the succeeding Orthodox Emperours did oftentimes Judge and Deprive Bishops by their own bare Authority That the Church in the time of that Emperour as well as in after Ages submitted to and acknowleg'd that Authority That those Ecclesiastical Canons which ordain that Bishops even for Political Crimes are to be depriv'd onely by Bishops did never oblige any Secular Government but as they were allow'd off and so made Laws by that Government I could willingly give you a Forecast of a few illustrious Examples of Bishops depriv'd by the Emperour 's sole Authority and the Church's owning and acknowledging that Authority but I find I have already exceeded what first I design'd on this Subject and have done like a great many others who designing onely a Lodge have been in danger of building 'em a Seat I shall now proceed to the second general Proposition which our Adversaries are desir'd to make out which is this 2. That it is agreeable to the Practice of the Ancient Christians for a Bishop unjustly depos'd whether by the Emperour or by Bishops to withdraw himself from the Communion of his Successor tho' his Successor were not a Heretick Let this be their Proposition If they prove not that they prove nothing And the contrary is plainly demonstrated in our Treatise There are Two things you tell me besides the Canons above spoken off which our Adversaries are wont to allege in Answer to that Treatise They First endeavour to weaken the Authority of it and Secondly they pretend that the Examples which it produces are all of Bishops Synodically depriv'd and therefore not to our Purpose In answer to this second Exception I shall undertake to demonstrat these Two things 1. That the Ancients had no greater regard to an unjust Synodical Deprivation than they had to an unjust Imperial Deprivation 2. That several of those Bishops that are mention'd in our Treatise were not Depriv'd Synodically or by Bishops but by the Emperour 's sole Power and Authority Neither did they resign their Bishopricks but were violently turn'd out As for the Objections of our Adversaries against the Authority of our Treatise tho' I know not of any Treatise of that age and nature that deserves to be more esteem'd yet to wave all impertinent Disputes and to shew that what we assert is not grounded on that onely Bottom we will fairly make 'em this Offer We will lay aside if they please the Authority of that Treatise and enter the Lists with new Weapons This is the Prâ—position we shall take upon us to demonstrat That its contrary to the general Practice of the ancient Bishops to recede upon their being unjustly Depriv'd whether by the Emperour onely or by a Synod from the Communion of an Orthodox Successor I say the general Practice That 's enough for us to demonstrat For what if our Adversaries can produce us one or two Exceptions How will that excuse Bishops who have