writing Legends and has altogether as much foundation in History as that For the Historians only say that the Emperor caused his Eyes to be put out and then banished him to Rome but what became of him there or with whom he communicated they do not inform us The next Instance which he dwells Pag. 11. longer upon than any other in his whole Treatise is nothing at all to his purpose For what if Theodorus Studites were in fault for separating from the Patriarchs Tarasius and Nicephorus because they had admitted Joseph the Steward of the Church to Communion who had officiated in an unlawful Marriage How does this prove that although a Bishop was unjustly deprived neither he nor the Church ever made a Separation if the Successor was not an Heretick Were Tarasius and Nicephorus Intruders Or did Theodorus separate upon that account No such thing is pretended but Joseph had been guilty of a scandalous and wicked Action and yet was suffered to continue in Communion and hereupon Theodorus withdraws himself from the Church for which he is blamed and very justly But this only shews that private Christians ought not to forsake the Church tho the Discipline of it should not be so duly administred as they could wish but must take care of their own Duty tho the Church Governours should be negligent of theirs After so much said in so short a Pag. 17. Book beside the Subject he at last comes again to the Point but falls upon such an Example as is alone enough to disparage his whole Performance with any one almost that has ever heard of the Names of Ignatius and Photius For what can be more notorious than that Ignatius did not Communicate with Photius after he was displaced and Photius got into the See can we imagin he Communicated with one by whom he stood himself Excommunicated with one who was Excomunicated by his best Friend and Advocate Pope Nicholas and who in return had Excommunicated the said Pope (s) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Conc. Constantinopol 4. Col. 1268. For Photius had not been Consecrated forty days before he openly Deposed and Anathematised Ignatius as we have it related in an account that Ignatius sent to Pope Nicholas to acquaint him how Photius had dealt with him Ignatius was soon after sent into Nicet vit Ignat. p. 1222. Banishment where he was kept under so close Confinement that he was not suffered to perform any part of his Function and as he was not allowed to stir out so no body was permitted to come to him And if there be any thing of certainty in all the History of those affairs nothing can be more certain than that Ignatius and Photius did not hold Communion with each other for nothing occurs more frequently than the Anathema's which they pronounced one against the other But all the Reason our Author seems to have in this and some other Instances to conclude that the Deposed Patriarch did not refuse Communion with the Intruder is because both their names were read in the Diptycks whereas this one instance of Ignatius and Photius is enough to convince us that this is no good Argument for it is certain that these two Bishops did not hold Communion with one another yet after these differences were composed which had been occasioned in the Church by setting up Photius both their names were Recorded in the Diptycks and probably neither Party being to be wrought upon to recede from their Pretensions in behalf of the Patriarch whose Right they had maintained this was found to be the only Expedient to do the same honour to both of them which might without difficulty be agreed to since the Synod which restored Photius after the death of Ignatius had cancelled all the Acts against Photius of that Council which Deposed him and restored Ignatius and this Council which restored Photius is by the Greeks reckoned the eighth General Council Concerning the Deposing of Photius P. 18 19. a second time and the Deposing of Nicholas Zonaras whom our Author Zon. Tom. 3. p. 113. quotes says nothing from which it may be collected that Photius continued Communion with Stephen and Nicholas with Euthymius who were put into their rooms But because Zonaras says nothing to the contrary he concludes that they did hold Communion with them which is a very fallacious way of arguing to make Inferences from a Negative without any other Reason or Circumstance especially in so short an account as Zonaras gives of these things who only says in as few words as he can well express himself in that the Emperour picking a quarrel with the Patriarch sent him into a Monastery and appointed his Brother Stephen to be Patriarch and that Nicholas was likewise put into a Monastery and Euthymius constituted Patriarch in his stead And the same Author in S. Chrysostom's Case takes no notice of that separation which was occasioned by his Banishment for thirty five years together in the Church which the more ancient Historians inlarge so much upon and set forth in so many particulars And to be convinced that nothing ought to be concluded from the silence especially of these latter Historiars and Annalists we need only compare what these write with the account which Theodorite and Socrates and Sozomen give of the same Actions and when it is notorious that they commonly omit things as material as those they take notice of nothing more need be said to shew how little regard is to be had to their omission of things it is well if we may depend upon what they relate but to say such a thing never was because they do not relate it is such a way of arguing as only betrays the weakness of the Cause and shews how great want there is of better Arguments And as for the Ordinations of Euthymius Pag. 20. which he says were not rejected after Nicholas was restored again I have shewn how insignificant an Argument that is when even after Hereticks were received into the Church upon their Conversion their Orders were not disallowed But his account of Cosmas Atticus 〈◊〉 is the boldest stroke we have had yet for when Nicetas Choniates whose Authority he alledges says in express terms (t) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Niceâ— Choniat de Imperat. Mâ—nuel lib 2. p. 54. that he Excommunicated some of the Courtiers and the Synod too which Deposed him this Author has the confidence to quote Nicetas to vouch for him that Cosmas Atticus never separated from the Communion of his Deposers But we have had experience enough of our Author by this time not to wonder much now at whatever he is pleased to say Of the Deposing the Patriarchs Basilius Pag. 21. Camaterus and Nicetas we have only a bare Narrative in Nicetas Choniates but upon the Promotion of Dositheus in the room of Leontius he expresly says that the chief Bishops looking upon his Translation from Jerusalem to Constantinople to be contrary
to the Canons (u) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id de Jaac lib 2. p. p 260. held separate Assemblies Our Author has observed that in the space of nine years the Emperour Isaacius Angelus made five Patriarchs successively who were all alive together but he might have spared his Admiration that they did not separate from one anothers Communion for if this had been the approved and constant Practice of the Church as he pretends what great matter of Admiration could it be that five Patriarchs should do as all their Predecessors had done in the like Case Bâ—t the only wonder is how this Author comes to know that they did not separate when the Historian whom he quotes says no such thing It is plain indeed that if the Emperour had but any pretence and it was hard if he could find none the Greek Church in these Ages was so low and the Clergy of so base and abject Spirits that they were prepared to comply with any thing and if they expressed their Resentments it was in such a manner as could become the Zeal only of these degenerate times Thus when Euthymius was Deposed to make Cedren p. 607. way for the Restauration of Nicholas to his See again the Clergy who were of Nicholas's Party fell upon Euthymius like mad Men and beat him with their Fists and plucked him by the Beard and flung him down calling him Usurper and Adulterer and if it should be granted that Men who could shew such barbarous usage should notwithstanding keep in Communion with the Usurper whom they could think to deserve such usage from them I suppose their exampâ—e will be thought of no better Authority in the one than in the other But upon the whole matter after a full examination of all the Instances which this Author has brought to maintain his Assertion I must conclude in contradiction to it that very few if any Examples can be produced of Bishops who were unjustly Deposed that did hold Communion with the Intruders and that therefore upon the account of any thing which is offered in this Treatise a Separation is not Unreasonable REMARKS UPON THE Greek and Latin Edition SInce my writing this I have met with the Greek and Latin Edition of this Author and besides Mr. Hody's Preface there are some few things in the Book it self further to be observed In the English Preface to this Treatise we are told that there is no Name prefixt before it nor any Characters in it that may lead us to a probable Conjecture about the Author But Mr. Hody in his Preface to the Greek and Latin Edition thinks he has discovered the Author to be Nicephorus Gallistus that which he grounds his Conjecture upon is that this Discourse is in the same Volume with several other Manuscripts which have the Name of Nicephorus Callistus to them but he does not acquaint us that this is written in the same hand with the rest nor that it has the least Connexion or Affinity with them nor that all the other Tracts in that Volume have his Name before them and when the other Treatises have his Name prefixed and this has it not it is most probable that this is not his for if it were it would bear his Name as well as the rest Indeed if some of the most remarkable Tracts only had his Name to them and others which were known to be his were among them without his Name it would not be unlikely that this might be his too but when the rest have his Name and this has none what can be more reasonably concluded from it than that there was as much cause why his Name should be omitted in this as why it was preâ—â—xt before the â—est Mr. Hody himself observes that there is no eâ—â—ct agreement in the Catalogue of the Patriarchs of C. P. by Nicephorus and the account of them in this Author But there is a much greater and more obvious Difference between them than that for Nicephorus Callistus writes in an easie flowing stile and with great Elegancy considering the Age in which he wrote but our Author is heavy and unpleasant and scarce able to express that little he has to say and the best thing that can be said of his stile is that it is as good as the Subject deserves and it is great pity that such Stuff should be put into any better Language But there is another Difference between these two Authors yet more remarkable for Nicephorus giving an account of (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Niceph. lib. 13. cap. 20. St. Chrysostom's parting Words to his Friends makes their holding Communion with the succeeding Bishop to depend wholly upon his Permission he says that St. Chrysostom did an extraordinary thing which was without example and had something more than Humane in it when he gave leave to his Friends to live in communion with Bishops by whom he had been so ill used Whereas our Author makes it not to depend upon any Permission of the rightful Bishop but to be the constant practice of the Church and the indispensable Duty of all Christians to submit to every Intruder if he be no Heretick But if there were as much reason to believe that Nicephorus Callistus was the Author of this Treatise as there is to think that he was not yet his Name would give no great Credit to it but a Suspicion rather that it is not to be credited For excepting Malela lately published by Mr. Hody there is scarce any Author more fabulous than Nicephorus But this Manuscript outgoes even Malela and may have the Reputation of being the worst Greek Author extant 'till Mr. Hody is pleased to publish some other Both the Latin and the English Preface suppose this Tract to have been a Sermon or Homily or at least as it is added in the Latin to have been a Lecture in the Schools of some Professor of History because in two places he bespeaks his Auditor and not his Reader I have no mind to maintain a Controversie about a thing of no moment but this Reason does not satisfie me for I find that (b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. Her 64. n. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ib. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. de Mensur Ponderib n. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ib. n. 17. Epiphanius addresses himself to his Auditors in his Book against Heresies tho no Man can therefore imagin that that Book consists of as many Homilies as he treats of Heresies and he writes in the same manner in his Book of Measures and Weights tho it appears that that Book was neither an Homily nor a Lecture I rather believe that Copies of Books being dear and scarce before the Invention of Printing it was customary to recite other Discourses as well as Homilies or Lectures and that therefore such Expressions might either be used at first by the Author or be afterwards inserted by him that recited it Besides the stile of this Treatise does
AN ANSWER TO A TREATISE OUT OF Ecclesiastical History Translated from An Ancient Greek MANUSCRIPT in the Publick Library at Oxford BY HVMFRET HODY B. D. c. And Published under the Title of The Unreasonableness of a Separation from the New BISHOPS TO SHEW That although a Bishop was unjustly deprived neither he nor the Church ever made a Separation if the Successor was not an Heretick To which is added The CANONS in the Baroccian Manuscript Omitted by Mr. HODY LONDON Printed and are to be sold by J. Wells near S. Paul's Church-Yard 1691. THE PREFACE THat a Separation is always unreasonable on one side or the other is without all question but that it is unreasonable to separate from New Bishops that are placed in the Sees of Bishops who are uncanonically deposed for this Cause only that they are in Possession upon what Reason and Justice soever of the said Episcopal Sees is very strange Doctrine and such as was never I think heard of in the Church of England till this Treatise was published For in the Sense of the Catholick Church in her Canons and Constitutions the New Bishop himself in such a Case makes the Separation and to continue Communion with the true Bishop is not to separate from the wrongful Possessor but to keep our former Place and Station to adhere to the Right and not to follow those who have set themselves up in opposition to it But the Doctrin which this Anonymous Greek Author is brought to vouch for to the World is of such a pernicious Nature and if it be allowed must have such destructive Consequences in the Church that I cannot but think that all Men who have a sincere Love for the Church of England whatever their Opinions may be in other Matters will not be ill pleased to see it proved that there is no Example to be found of this in the Practice of the Greek Church till it was reduced to so low and deplorable a Condition as to be no longer a Pattern for Imitation but a Caution rather for us to beware of those things which brought the Greeks into that Distress under which they have so long groaned And if we will but give our selves the least leisure to consider what is then that can bring more certain and speedy Ruine upon a Church than to act by such a Principle as makes all Ecclesiastical Authority have its sole and entire dependance upon external Force and Power and upon the casual Success and Events of things For if when the Civil Magistrate shall displace a Bishop for any frivolous cause or for no Cause at all but with the greatest and most apparent Injustice all Christians shall be obliged in Conscience to submit to the Intruder if he be but Orthodox and not to adhere to their lawful Bishop this utterly destroys all Church Authority and gives it up wholly into the Power of the Magistrate who may set up what Bishop he pleases provided they be no Hereticks and change them as often as he pleases and the Clergy and People shall be bound in Conscience to take no further notice of the dispossessed but to live under the new ones be they never so many and never so bad in all Acts of Communion and Obedience Now unless the Church can be ruined by nothing but Heresie or there be nothing that can render a Bishop unqualified for his Station but Heresie it is evident that this Doctrine leaves it at the Mercy of the Prince whether there shall long be any Church in his Dominions It is manifest that these Principles make all Church Censures ineffectual and expose the Church to all the Mischiefs of Erastianism For if a Prince should prefer an excommunicated Person to the See of the Bishop by whom he stands excommunicated supposing only that he was not excommunicated for Heresie this Person tho never so justly excommunicated must be owned and obeyed instead of the Bishop who excommunicated him which lodges all Church Power in the Prince and makes all Ecclesiastical Censures of no effect for the Benefit and Preservation of the Church whenever he pleases A Schismatical Prince by this Doctrine may set up Schismatical Bishops and the Church will have no Remedy against them For instance if Constantine had been a Novation or Donatist he might have deposed the Rightful Bishops and have set up Novations or Donatists in their stead if those Sects were then only Schisms and they were no more at first But whoever can imagin that the Clergy and People of that Age would have communicated with them and have deserted their true Bishop may indeed believe all that our Author has said Tho the truth is according to his Principles no Prince can be a Schismatick because he may make what Bishops he pleases and so can make what Church he pleases and it will be the Duty of Christians to communicate not with their Bishops but with their Prince or which is the same thing with what Bishops he appoints A Popish Prince might set up Popish Bishops amongst us for he could never want Men who at least upon as good Grounds and from as good Authorities as those upon which this Doctrine is propounded to us would prove that Popery is no Heresie A Prince of a Latitudinarian Faith may by these Principles give us Socinian Bishops For the Disciples of Episcopius and Curcellaeus will undertake to prove that the Points in Controversie are not of necessity to Salvation and do not consequently involve the Assertors of them in Heresie And if a Prince should design never so well for the Glory of God and the Interest of Religion yet how easie it is for Princes to be mistaken and misled in things of this nature we may see in Constantine himself who was deceived by the Arians into a good Opinion of them after the Council of Nice even to the sending St. Athanasius away from his See tho he took care to keep it void from him till his return to prevent a Schism which by the Practice of the Church could not otherwise have been avoided But this is most of all remarkable in the unhappy Reign of Constantius who certainly was a very Devout Prince and had very good intentions in calling so many Synods and therefore the Fathers often mention him with Respect and with great Compassion but was miserably deluded and imposed upon by the Arians and persuaded to banish all the Orthodox Bishops and fill up the Sees with those of their own number But we must observe that tho Constantius believed that the Arians were not Hereticks but Orthodox and died in his errâ—r as S. Athanasius declares tho S. Gregory Nanianzen and Theodorâ—t say the contrary and therefore cannot be supposed to want any inclinations to Depose Athanasius by his own Power and the Arians wanted no Malice against Athanasius nor no Authority with the Emperour to put him upon it yet because according to the Doctrine professed on both sides this could not be done
they were forced to be at all that trouble to get a Synod of their own Party to effect it But if it be left to the Arbitrary Will of the Prince to Depose the Orthodox Bishops at his Pleasure and supply the vacancies with any whom he thinks fit and their Dioceses must be obliged in Conscience to acknowledge them he will be sure in a short time to have such Bishops as shall determine that only to be Heresie which he will have to be so and it is a vain thing to say that Heretical Bishops must not be promoted or that they must not be obeyed for in a little time by this Doctrine there will be nothing reputed Heresie nor Schism but to hold a different Opinion and a different Commanion from that of the Prince But to come nearer home this Doctrine denies the Church a Power which is granted to be in all other Societies own no Head but of their own choosing or who is otherwise regularly set over them according to their Charter or Constitution and it seems if King James had put in new Bishops against the consent of the Chapters the Dioceses would have been obliged to obey them though the Fellows of Magdalen College in Oxford were bound in Conscience not to acknowledge a President who was forced upon them against their Statutes It may perhaps be said that we are secured from all the inconveniences that would follow from this Doctrine inasmuch as by the Laws of the Land no Bishop can be forced upon us by the King but he must be chosen by the Chapter of the Cathedral Church of the Diocese to which he is nominated But first if this Doctrine be calculated only for our own Church and we must be governed by a different Rule from the rest of the Catholick Church why then is the Practice of the Greek Church brought to recommend it to us But if this have been the Doctrine and Practice of all Churches we are not to imagine that the Laws of the Land can make it no sin but a Duty to separate from intruding Bishops when the Laws of God and of his Church enjoyn the contrary For the Laws of our Country must cease to oblige us in Conscience when they are inconsistent with the Doctrine and Practice of the Church in all Ages and if these have been always the Principles and this the Practice of the Church as it is now pretended to own the present Bishop whoever he be if he be no Heretick I doubt it will be in vain to alledg the Laws of the Land against an Intruder when he is once in Possession as long as he can keep his Possession but we must have Bishops de Facto and must be bound in Conscience to submit to them by whatever ill means they came in at first But suppose that the Laws of the Land would be a security to us as they have hitherto been and will be still if we retain our old Principles yet how can we be sure that the Laity will be more tender of the Honour and welfare of the Church than the Clergy themselves are And that if the Clergy give up the Ecclesiastical Authority they will not be willing to consent to it and be contented that a Prince should be absolute in Ecclesiastical Affairs if he will but act according to Law in Civil But whatever security there may be from the Secular Power to the Church since it is incorporated into the State yet by these Principles the Church could not have supported it self against the Attempts of Schismaticks before the Emperours became Christians and if the Civil Government should withdraw its Protection it is plain this Scheme leaves the Church no Power to defend it self against the Vsurpation of one Bishop upon another for by this Model of Church-Government if a Bishop get into Possession of anothers Diocese by any way whatsoever whether by the Secular Power or by any other means provided he be no Heretick he is from thence forth to be looked upon as the true Bishop notwithstanding any Canon of the Church against his Vsuâ—pation So that this Notion does effectually dissolve all Church-Government and leaves no Power and Authority in the Church to preserve it self but leaves it at the Mercy not only of the Civil Magistrate but of any Invader who is no Heretick or does not appear to be such Novatian if he could have got into Possession of the Episcopal Throne must by these Principles have been submitted to as Bishop of Rome than which nothing can be more absurd or more contrary to the Doctrine and Practice of the Church in all Ages And if the Cause of the New Bishops can be defended by none but such Principles it is plain that it is not to be defended at all for we must not contradict the Doctrine of the Church in all Ages to serve a present Turn nor maintain the Church in this Age so as to have no Church left for the next But I shall not here undertake further to shew how dangerous and destructive these Principles are to the Church of England and to Religion in general much less is it my business to state the Case now in Controversie I intend only to pursue the Author of this Treatise through his Discoveries which he pretends to make in Ecclesiastical History and if I can shew that this Greek has put a fallacy upon us I hope we shall not suffer our selves to be cheated by the impertinent and false Stories of an obscure Writer of no Name nor Authority but who appears to have lived in the most decayed and worst State of the Greek Church when their Sermons were nothing but ill digested Rapsodies which both for their Stile and Sense will scarce endure the Reading their Ecclesiastical Histories nothing but Legends of Miracles and all their Histories both Ecclesiastical and Civil full of such idle Stories as most Men are ashamed to tell after them and when by their Vices and Ignorance they had rendred themselves ripe for that Destruction which soon after came upon them It is to those Ages that we owe the loss of so many of the Works of the Fathers of the First Centuries and the Corruption of others to Countenance the Tenets and Practices of their own times and it is no wonder that when their Bishops were so often Deposed at the pleasure of the Emperour upon frivolous or rather upon very unjust pretences some should endeavour to make it believed that such Proceedings must be acquiesced in according to the Practice of former Ages in the like cases when the decay of all sound Knowledge and true Religion and of all good Orders and Discipline both in Church and State was so great and their Divisions so incurable which were principally occasioned or extremely heightened by the frequent changes of the Patriarchs that they at last brought utter ruin upon the Empire and subjected the Church to the Arbitrary Pleasure of the Grand Seignior And it is
not seem at all like to that of an Homily for their Homilies after the decay of Learning were full of Hyperboles Antiâ—heses Tautologies and frequent Repetitions of the same Words and all the Affectations of a false Eloquence but our Author uses few Words without any shew of Eloquence or pretence to it for to do him right he seems to have understood his own Talent better than to pretend to any thing in that way Having said thus much of the Author Mr. Hody comes now to give an account of his Reasons for the Publication and here he informs his Reader in very tragical Terms that the Church of England being all in Flames he for our comfort has found out this new Engine to quench the Fire I desire to be as apprehensive of the Mischiefs of Schism as any Man and therefore must beseech all Christians seriously to consider whether this Treatise be not more likely to promote Schisms in the Church than to prevent or remove them His next business is to set down some Examples from Antiquity which he puts our present Bishops in mind it is their duty to follow The first is that of S. Chrysostom but he has said no more of him than we had before in the English Preface excepting that he has framed a new Speech for him which makes me begin to suspect that perhaps Palladius took the same liberty that Mr. Hody has done for Declamations are as usual and altogether as proper in a Dialogue as in a Preface His next Instance is of St. Augustin and the rest of the African Bishops in the Conference at Carthage (c) lib. de Gestis cum emerito The account S. Augustin gives us is this that before they held this Conference with the Donatists the Catholick Bishops made a Proposal that if the Donatists could convince them that they were in the wrong they would be contented to be received by the Donatists not as Bishops but to Lay-Communion only as private Christians but the Donatist Bishops if they were convicted of Error should be permitted upon their Repentance to preside in the same Sees together with the Catholick Bishops and the Survivors to be the sole Bishops of the Sees or if it would not be approved of that there should be two Bishops at once of the same Church that both the Catholick and Donatist Bishops should resign and that new Bishops should be appointed in all such Churches where the Donatists had their Bishops as well as the Catholicks And St. Augustin says that of almost Three Hundred Bishops thâ—re were but Two who made any scruple or demur upon it all besides were earnest and zealous for this Expedient and these Two were soon brought over to be of the same mind with the rest This is the full of what St. Augustin relates and I need not tell the Reader tho I must tell Mr. Hody that it is nothing to the present Subject But it is observable that the Schismatical Bishops were so refractory in the Conference at Carthage that they gave little encouragement for the Rightful Bishops to make any such Proposals to Intruders afterwards St. Gregory Nazianzen's Case has been spoken to already And as for the Advice which St. Dionysius of Alexandria gave to Novatian when he pretended that he was unwillingly made Bishop that this would be best seen by his desisting from his Vsurpation it is admirable Advice and I hope all will take notice of it who are concerned Another Citation he produces from the first I pistle of St. Clement to the Corinthians to shew that that Father exhorted the Presbyters who were ordained by the Apostles themselves rather to recede from their Right when they were â—urned out by a Faction than to occasion any Division in the Church But it seems plain to me that St. Clement gives this Admonition not to the Rightful Presbyters but to those who had stirred up and fomented the Differences For not long before he exhorts (c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 51. all who had been the principal Authors and Abettors of Sedition and Dissention to regard the common Good more than their own private Interest for those who lived in Charity would rather condemn themselves than destroy the Order and Discipline of the Church and it was better for Men to confess their Sins than to harden their Hearts as Corah and his Associates did who raised a Sedition against Moses and as Pharaoh and the Egyptians had likewise done Then he exhorts them to the Confession of c. 52. their Sins from several Passages out of the Psalms and afterwards sets before them the Example of Moses who in a c. 53. wonderful Extasie of Zeal and Charity for the People who had sacrificed to the molten Calf desired rather to be himself blotted out of God's Book than that they should perish and then says that if there were any among them of a generous and charitable and c. 54. truly Christian Spirit he would depart and go whither they pleased if so be the People would live quietly and peaceably under the Presbyters constituted over them And besides c. 55. the Example of Moses he proceeds to take notice that among the Gentiles themselves Kings and other Magistrates had often exposed their own Persons to danger and ruin for the Preservation of their People and others had left their Countrey rather than they would be the occasion of any disturbance in it nay that many Christians had to his own knowledg delivered themselves up into Captivity to redeem others and many had sold themselves for Slaves to feed others with the Price of their own Servitude And among the Jews Judith and Esther refused no Dangers for the Deliverance of their Nation (d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. c. 56. Let us then says he pray for those who are in fault (*) So it must be translated if we read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it is in the Text and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it is by conjecture only put in the Margin that Meekness and Humility may be given them that they may yield not to us but to the Wâ—ll of God And because this might seem a hard saying to many and too difficult to be put in practice he shews them that they ought patiently to receive Admonition and to submit to that Correction and Chastisement which God should be pleased to inflict either by his own Hand upon them or by the Discipline of the Church You therefore that have laid the Foundations of Sedition submit your selves to the Presbyters in order to your Repentance and be humble c. 57. and learn to be obedient laying aside the proud and boasting Arrogance of your Tongue for it is better to be one of the little ones who are approved of in the Flock of Christ than by aspiring too high to fall short of your hope or * 16 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 marg to be cast out of the Fold