the Communion of an Orthodox Successor Pray look with both Eyes and see if you can possibly find in the Canons any thing truly pertinent to that particular Subject The Argument and Design of them is against private Conventicles without a lawfull Presbyter against a Presbyter or a Deacon's withdrawing from the Communion of his Bishop without a just Cause that a Bishop being condemn'd by the Bishops of the same Province it shall not be in the power of the Bishops of another Province to take the matter into their Cognisance against such Presbyters as shall separate from their Bishops on pretence of some Crimes they can charge 'em with before they be legally convicted against such Bishops as shall pretend to condemn their Metropolitan and to leave his Communion on pretence of his Vices before he is legally condemn'd and lastly against such Metropolitans as shall act in like manner with relation to their Patriarch I shall here translate you these Canons in the same order as they ly in the MS. In Doctor Beveridge's Synodicon you may read 'em all in the Original Can. Apost XXXI If a Presbyter shall in contempt of his Bishop gather a separate Congregation and erect another Altar his Bishop being not condemn'd by him for any Impiety or Injustice let him be depriv'd as Ambitious For he is a Tyrant In like manner others of the Clergy that shall adhere to him But let the Laity that shall make themselves of his Party be excommunicated And let these things be done after three Admonitions given by the Bishop What is this in God's Name to our Treatise How does this prove our Author's Meaning to be of a Synodical Deprivation What is this to the adhering to a Bishop not Synodically Depriv'd in opposition to another put into his Place Can. Concil Gang. VI. If any one in contempt of the Church shall gather a private Congregation and do those things which belong to the Church without a Presbyter appointed by the Bishop let him be Anathema What relation could this Canon have to the design of our Author It was made as Zonaras tells us against the Eustathians who despis'd the Congregations of the Church and set up Conventicles in their private Oratories and here they are forbid to celebrate the Service of the Church even in the private Chappels of their Houses without a Presbyter appointed 'em by the Bishop This our new Recusants would do well to observe Can. Concil Antioch V. If a Presbyter or Deacon shall in contempt of his Bishop separate himself from the Church and set up a Conventicle and erect an Altar and not submit to his Bishop after a second Admonition let him be depos'd and let him be uncapable for ever of being restor'd to his Honour and the Cure of Souls And if he goes on to raise Troubles and Seditions in the Church let him be punisht by the Civil Power as a Rioter How could this Canon be produc'd by the Author of our Treatise as pertinent to the Subject of it What 's this to a Bishop depriv'd by a Lay Power and the leaving his Communion who is put in his place which our Adversaries tell us is warranted by the Author of our Treatise The XVth Canon of the same Council If a Bishop being accus'd of any Crimes shall be condemn'd by all the Bishops of the Province and all shall unanimously agree in the Sentence against him he may not be judg'd again by others but the Sentence past unanimously by the Bishops of the Province shall be valid This Canon was made to prevent Appeals which a Bishop depriv'd by the Bishops of the same Province of which he was might make to some other Bishop or Bishops of another Province Pray tell me how it makes to the Business and Subject of our Treatise What Lynceus so very strong sighted as to see a Thing at that Distance Can. Concil Carthag XI If a Presbyter through Pride shall make a Schism against his Bishop let him be Anathema This is onely an Epitome of the XI Canon of the Council of Carthage What a rare relation it has to the particular Subject of our Treatise What a plain Demonstration it affords that the Author understands a Synodical Deprivation The XIII Canon of the Council call'd the First and Second The Devil scattering Heretical Seeds in the Church of Christ and seeing them cut off at the Root by the Sword of the Spirit has pitcht on another Method and endeavours to divide the Body of Christ by the Madness of Schismaticks The holy Council in order to prevent this Snare as well as the other has decreed That if any Presbyter or Deacon having condemn'd his Bishop for any Crimes shall dare to depart from his Communion and refuse to recite his Name in the Publick Prayers of the Church according to the usual Custom before he be Synodically tryed and perfectly condemn'd that Person shall be depos'd and depriv'd of all his Honour in the Priesthood For any one plac't in the order of a Presbyter if he takes upon him to prevent the Iudgment of the Metropolitan and to condemn and pass Sentence on his Father and Bishop he is not worthy of the Honour or Name of a Presbyter And they that adhere to such as have done so if they are of the Priesthood let them likewise be depriv'd of their Honour if Monks or of the Laity let 'em be Excommunicated till they leave the Schismatical Party and return to their respective Bishop I shall pass a Remark on this and the other two which follow together The XIV Canon of the same Council If a Bishop upon charging his Metropolitan with a Crime shall withdraw from his Communion and refuse to recite his Name in the publick Service of the Church according to Custom before he is Synodically tryed the holy Council decrees he be depos'd upon Proof that he made such a Schism For all Men ought to observe their proper Duties and the Presbyter must not despise his Bishop nor the Bishop his Metropolitan The XV. Canon of the same What has been decreed concerning Presbyters Bishops and Metropolitans the same is yet more reasonable with relation to Patriarchs If therefore any Presbyter or Bishop or Metropolitan shall dare to recede from the Communion of his Patriarch and does not according to Custom recite his Name in the Publick-Service of the Church but makes a Schism before his Patriarch has been Synodically try'd and perfectly condemn'd the holy Synod ordains That upon Proof made of such a Schism he be depos'd And these things are ordained and ratified concerning those who upon pretence of certain Crimes shall separate from their respective Bishops and make a Schism and break the Communion of the Church For they that separate themselves from the Communion of their Bishop for a Heresy condemn'd by the holy Fathers and Councils he publickly professing and preaching the Heresy shall be so far from being obnoxious to any Canonical Punishment on
the account of such a Separation that they shall be honour'd as becomes true Believers For in such a case they do not condemn true Bishops but false Ones and they do not break the Vnity of the Church by a Schism but endeavour to deliver the Church from Schisms and Divisions Here ends the Collection of Canons That which follows immediatly in the MS. is altogether forreign both to them and the Treatise a Fragment of a Story concerning Artaxares and Chosroes of Persia. And now Sir you have read all the so much celebrated Canons which have rais'd so great Expectation and been made the common Defence of those that have been prest with the Authority of the Oxford Antiquity When you light on any of the Adversaries of the Oxford Antiquity pray shew 'em freely to them and desire them to make their best of 'em Much good may they do ' em If you meet with any of 'em so very Iudicious as to lay any Stress on the Mention that is made in these Three last Canons of a Synodical Deprivation pray desire them to be so just to you as to give you a Reason Let 'em give you a Proof that those Canons are a Part of the Treatise Let 'em shew how it makes for their Cause that in them there is mention made of a Synodical Deprivation how it proves that the Author of our Treatise is onely to be understood of a Synodical Deprivation Desire 'em but to open their Eyes and then they will plainly see that the whole Design of those Canons is onely against a Separation from our Bishops and the throwing off Canonical Obedience upon our own private Judgments and Pretences that the Vices or Crimes of a Bishop ought not to be made an Occasion of a Separation unless he be legally and fully condemn'd and depriv'd This is still the Doctrine of our Church and what we in England call Legal the Greeks when they spoke with relation to Bishops call'd a Synodical Deprivation 'cause the ordinary way of Depriving Bishops amongst them was by the Metropolitan and the rest of the Bishops of the Province who by the Consent of the Emperour were constituted the ordinary Judges of the Causes of Bishops I shall here add that it is easy for any Man of Judgment to observe That therefore the Canons which we have above produc'd were by some Body tackt to our Treatise in the MS. because of some kind of Relation which they seem to have to the General or Material Subject of the Treatise viz. Schism and Bishops tho they have not any Pertinency or Relation to the Formal or Particular Subject of it The adhering to an Orthodox Bishop in possession tho the former Bishop was unjustly turn'd out We know that most of those MS. Volumes which now our Libraries afford us were nothing else but so many Volumes as it were of Common Places in which Men of Learning and Study heapt together such Things as seem'd to them something akin And hence it is that in most Theological MSS. or at least in very many you meet with Canons of Councils disperst up and down according to the Subject of the Treatise foregoing Hence likewise many Fragments of the Fathers subjoin'd to Discourses of Divinity and others out of the Historians subjoin'd to Historical Treatises and the like A Thousand Instances of this may be easily produc'd if need were but I shall not spend Pains and Paper in what will easily be granted by all that are acquainted with MSS. I must not here omit that besides the Copy of our Treatise which we ow to the Baroccian Volume there is at this time extant another in France It is mention'd by the famous Cotelerius in his Notes upon the Third Volume of his Monumenta Ecclesiae Graecae He quotes it under the Title of a Treatise Concerning the famous Schism which was rais'd upon the account of Josephus the Presbyter and he says he intended to publish it That that which he mentions is the same with our Treatise appears by a certain Quotation of one of the Epistles of Methodius out of the Second Book of Nico which is produc'd by Cotelerius out of it and is in the very same words in our Treatise Since I publisht the Treatise I receiv'd this Observation from the Famous and Learned Mr. Dodwel Now if any one is so very unwilling to be convinc'd as not to be satisfied with what we have hitherto said and he thinks it worth his Curiosity he would do very well to desire an account of this Copy from some Body at Paris It is I suppose to be found in the King's Library there tho Cotelerius makes no mention where he had it Five Hundred to One but a Month or Six Weeks hence we may have a Report spread abroad that Advice has been sent from Paris that the aforesaid Canons are found in the MS. there in the self same manner as at Oxford A spurious Letter as from some considerable Man the Librarian himself or some other will do very well for that purpose This would be but a very dull Imposture since the Canons make nothing to the Purpose of the Treatise However I shall here let you know that it often happens that Two distinct MS. Copies of a Treatise have the same things subjoin'd at the end of the Treatise And the Reason is plain viz Because they were either transcrib'd from one another or are both descended from the same I know This is very Dry Food for a Person of so delicate and nice a Digestion as you are But however I shall give you one Instance We have here in Oxford amongst the Baroccian MSS. a Copy of Anastasius Sinaita Nicaenus some men miscall him his Quaestiones Theologicae at the End of which there are added many Fragments of several Authors which by the manner of Writing you would take to be part of the Work Another ancient Copy of the same Work is extant in the aforesaid Library at Paris in which the same Fragments are exactly found as I know by a particular account of that Volume which I have met with And yet it is certain that the Fragments we speak off are not part of the Work of Anastasius but annex'd to it by some ancient Librarian Concerning the Schism which was rais'd upon the account of Iosephus the Presbyter of which there is mention in the Paris Copy as the occasion of our Treatises being written I shall tell you something by and by Before I utterly dismiss this Cause I shall begg your leave to observe that the Council call'd First and Second to which the Three last of the Canons above translated do belong was a Council call'd under Photius the Patriarch of Constantinople in which the said Photius tho made a Patriarch by the Emperour when Ignatius the Patriarch was unjustly depos'd by the Emperour 's bare Authority was receiv'd and own'd as rightful Patriarch and that whilst Ignatius was living And 't is further observable
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
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
the Publisher and even the Licenser of that Treatise Here it comes into my Head what a Friend of ours said when I shew'd him some Libellous Letters which have very freely been sent me Bless us says he What a Bawling here is what a Squaling and Calling of Names when a Person has been soundly Brusht From the scurrilous Writers let us pass Sir if you please to the scurrilous No-Writers those Masters of Reflection and Censure who you say are so free upon this Occasion with the Name and Reputation oâ— your Friend I thank you Sir for that good Advice which you give me But here agen I must blame you for â—oâ—getting me so far as to fear I may be capable of â—eing disturb'd by the Insults of Adversaries Can you think me so Pusillanimous as to have Regard to those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let me tell ye my dearest Friend I shall think my self very unhappy and but a very mean Profiâ—â—â—â— in Philosophy when any Houses oâ— Detractions of either the Angry or the Envious can so much move me as to turn me any way from my Duty 'T is a brisk â—aying you know of Gaulminus Scio merâ—ri ferre inviâ—iam The Mereri I have nothing to say to I leave that to Gaulminus and the rest of his Fellow-Pretenders but the Ferre I my self do pretend to Be pleas'd to tell my Encomiasts when you hear any of 'em Harangue that I never thought the World so much a Vtopia as not to expect their Elogiums May they long and freely enjoy their own Humours as I am resolv'd to enjoy Mine But withal let 'em know that by way of Return I have something for Them full as hot as those Coals of Fire which our great and common Master has commanded me to heap upon their Heads To be short Sir give 'em my Service and tell 'em they have the Prayers of Your Humble Servant Pag. 19 〈◊〉 3. read by writing p. 26. l. 2 as to make * Nebulo * Not. That the seeming supposition of thâ—s Canon that its lawful for a Presbyter to recede from the Communion of his Bishop and to set up an Altar against him if he be a Vicious Person is unjust as Balsamon affirms and contrary to the express declaration of other Canons of the Greek Church and particularly one of those that follow But I scarce doubt but as they that compos'd the Canon intended that the Bishop should be judicially and Canonically condemn'd for the Crime alleg'd against him by the Presbyter tho the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do not plainly express it * Here begin the Words which the Learned Mr. D to k to be the Words not of the Canon but the Transcriber * Offendi pariter in opusculo nunc inedito olim si Deus dederit â—dendo De celebri Schismate ob Josephum Presbyterum haec verba 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 645. * Mores meorum says he in the Person of a Luciferian apprime novi facilius eos vinci posse quam persuaderi * Totum sermonem meum tanquam mutus audivit Retract l. 2. c. 51. Multa diximus etiam fatigati tamen Frater noster propter quem ista dicimus vobis cui pariter dicimus pro quo tanta agimus adhuc consistit Lib. de Gestis cum Emerito * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Iam cum inprimis vestrae in Deum pietati sâ—aeque Sedi hunc Episcopum Dominus Deus noster Pater Constantinus restituere vellet humana 〈…〉 hoc votum impleret requieverit ego mihi convenire puto ut susceptae voluntaâ—e sacrae memoriâ—e Imperatoris id ipsum adimpleam quod ille non potuit Apud Athanasiâ— ad Imp. Const. Apolog. p. 806. †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ap. S. Athan. Apol. ad Imp. Const. p. 784. Persequeris eum per quem te audire praeceperit Dominus agente eo in rebus humanis cohareticum tuum Georgium mittis Successorem cum tametsi fuisset liberatus jam Athanasius corpore l. è Corp. tibi non licuerit mittere sed fuerâ—t ac sit in Dei manu quem fuisset dignatus populo suo antistitem instituere per servos viz. suos hoc est Catholicos Episcopos Neque enim possit impleri virtui Spiritus Sancti ad Dei gubernandum populum nisi is quem Deus allegisset cuique manus per Catholicos Episcopos fuisset imposita hic deest aliquid è corpore liberetur aut quid simile sicut defuncto Moyse impletum Spiritu Sancto invenimus Successorem ejus Iesum Naue Loquitur Scriptura Sancta dicens Iesus filius Naue impletus est spiritu intelligentiae Imposuerat enim Moyses manum super eum audierunt eum Filii Israel fecerunt secundum quod mandavit Dominus Moysi Conspicis ordinationi Dei te obviam îsse contra Dei faciendo voluntatem temet mucrone gladii tui jugulatum siquidem non licuerit ordinari nisi fuisset defunctus Athanasius defuncto Athanasio Catholicus debuerit per Catholicos ordinari Episcopos lib. 1. Superest ut hac ipsâ re singuli quid sentiamus proferamus neminem judicantes aut à jure Communionis aliquem si diversa senserit amoventes Neque enim quisquam nostrum Episcopum se Episcoporum constituit aut tyrannico terrore ad obsequonâ—◠〈◊〉 Collegas suos adigit quando habeat omnis Episcopus pro licentiâ libertatis potestatis suae arbitrium proprium tamque judicari ab alio non possit quam nec ipse potest judicare Sed expectemus universi judicium Domini nostri Iesu Christi qui unus solus habet potestatem praeponendi nos in Ecclesiae suae gubernatione de actu nostro judicandi Haec ad conscientiam tuam Erater carissime pro honore communi pro simplici dilectione pertulimus credentos etiam tibi pro Religionis tuae fidei veritate placere quae religiosa pariter vera sunt Caeterum scimus quosdam quod semel imbiberint nolle deponere nec pro positum suum facile murare sed salvo inter Collegas pacis concordiae vinculo quaedam propria quae apud se semel sint usurpata retinere Quâ in re nec nos vim cuiquam facimus aut legem damus cum habeat in Ecclesiae administratione voluntatis suae arbitrium liberum unusquisque Praepositus rationem actâ—s sui Domino redditurus Epist. 71. Quâ in parte nemini verecundia modestia nostra a praejudicat quo minus unusquisque quod putat sentiat quod senserit faciat Nos quantu concipit mediocritas nostra aestimamus c. Rescripsi Fili carissime ad literas tuas quantum parva nostra mediocritas valuit ostendi quid nos quantum in nobis est sentiamus nemini praescribentes quo minus statuat quod putat unusquisque Praepositus actus sui rationem Domino redditurus secundum