A LETTER FROM Mr. HUMPHREY HODY, TO A FRIEND Concerning a Collection of Canon's 〈◊〉 said be Deceitfully omitted in his Edition of the Oxford Treatise against SCHISM. In which is likewise Contained Offer of Certain Propositions to be proved by the Advocates for the New Separation. WITH A Vindication of the Authority of the Civil Power in Depriving such BISHOPS as refuse to submit to it.  
Nemo vos, Fratres, errare à Domini viis faciat. Nemo vos Christianos ab Evangelio Christi rapiat. Nemo Filios Ecclesiae de Ecclesiâ tollat. Pereant sibi soli qui perire voluerunt. Extra Ecclesiam soli remaneant, qui de Ecclesiâ recesserunt.  S. Cypr. 
OXFORD, Printed by I. Lichfield, for Ant. Pisly Bookseller. 1692.   

Imprimatur  
Dec. 12 1691. JONATH. ED VICECAN.   

A LETTER FROM Mr. HUMPHREY HODY, TO A FRIEND. Concerning a Collection of Canons, said to be deceitfully Omitted by him, in his Edition of the Oxford Treatise against SCHISM.  
SIR,  
A Day or Two ago, upon my Return out of the Country, I received your Letter, which had lain some time expecting me: In which you are pleased to advise me, concerning a Report industriously spread abroad, by the Abettors of our present Schism, That the Treatise against it, which I lately Translated out of the Baroccian MS. is Partially, and Deceitfully published; That there are some Canons belonging to it omitted, which would, if published, have unravelled the Whole. I had heard of such a Report before I received your Letter, but I rather admired at the Heat and judgement of those that first raised it, than thought it worthy to be taken notice off by me, and refuted. I could hardly believe, that they, that were the Authors of it, were really in earnest, when first the Noise was made; and, if they were in earnest, I knew that their Judgements were determined by so strong a Biuss of Resentment and Zeal for a Cause, that all men must easily perceive it. I could not persuade myself, that any Person of common Ingenuity and Candour, could believe me guilty of so dull a Piece of Knavery, a Knavery so easily discoverable, and that by my own Direction. It was really very entertaining to observe, to what little Arts and Shift our Adversaries were reduced. I plainly saw by their Passion, and their holding up dirty Hands, that I had given 'em a Fall. And I could not wonder, that so small a Person as your Friend should be so stigmatised, when even Cecilianus, the great Archbishop of Carthage, was, by the Schismatical Donatists, called downright 
* Nebulo.  Knave, in a Letter to the Emperor Constantine; and that too, though He himself had judicially acquitted him, and declared him a worthy Archbishop. 'Tis this is the Humour, and indeed the unhappiness, of Mankind: If in your Opinions, or Actions, you chance to run counter to a Party, there is no expecting of Quarter: you are fallen in among Rapparees, and, if it lies in their power, God have mercy upon you, you will certainly fall by one Weapon or other; you must either be a Fool or a Knave. Where the Bluntness of the former will not pierce, there the Sharpness of the latter must be tried. They will stab one at the Heart, if they cannot knock one on the Head. This they will be sure to endeavour to do: but the best of it is, it does often happen, that there's no one 〈…〉 I was confident it would prove so with me: I knew it was impossible, that the Dirt, wherewith I was so freely and bountifully bespattered, should stick long upon me, that a little Time would of course dry it off; and if not so, 'twould however come out by the least Rubbing. The Design of those, that first blew abroad that strange and improbable Rumour, was so obvious to all, that would give themselves leave to Think, that I could not imagine, any Persons of sound Understanding could possibly give Ear to it: The Fort I had happily raised was very strong and impregnable, well-maned with stout and unconquerable Veterans; and who could not see through so common and usual a Stratagem, as that of a False Report? What else could be done to keep up the sinking Spirits of the Adverse Party? It was necessary they should be persuaded, that though there was an Appearance of many Brave Men upon the Walls, yet there lay in the Town concealed, a much stronger Party, Wellwishers to Them, that would show Themselves shortly, discover the Weakness of the rest, and deliver up the Place.  
These Considerations, Sir, made me altogether secure, and regardless of that idle and unlikely Tale: But you blame me, you say; I must not any longer despise it; It is still, as you tell me, continued, and by many believed. And the Author of a Pamphlet entitled, An Apology for the New Separation, etc. has made a public Complaint of my Disingenuity in this matter? He says, he is assured by his Friends in Oxford, that that Collection of Canons, which follows our Tract in the MS. is a part of the Tract, and that it shows plainly, that the Author 〈◊〉 the Tract, when he contends, That A Bishop unjustly deposed ought not to make a Division in the Church provided his Successor be Orthodox, is to be understood of only a Synodical Deprivation; By which he means, that the Author of the Treatise supposes, that, if a Bishop unjustly deprived, be deprived by a Secular Power, and not by a Synod of Bishops, than he is not obliged not to make a Separation. Upon this account, I see 'tis high time to rouse up myself a little, since the Philistines are so much upon me. I shall now, Sir, obey your Commands, in laying before you those Canons which our Adversaries so much boast off, and the Reasons why I did not publish 'em together with the Treatise; That you yourself may judge what a Nothing that is, that has made such a Bounce; that 'tis only mere Powder, that can hurt no one else but the Person that Fires.  
In the first place, Sir, I must assure you, That when I transcribed our Treatise out of the Baroccian MS. I did it as an Historian, or a Philologer, or whatsoever else you will call it, not imagining then, I should ever send it abroad upon such an Occasion: If therefore the aforesaid Canons do truly belong to the Treatise, it is to be imputed to the error and mistake of my judgement, and not to an ill Design, that they are omitted. I perused 'em, I remember, at that time, and they seemed to me (as still they do) not at all to belong to the Treatise. They are written, I grant, in the same hand, and immediately follow the Treatise, but (for Godsake!) what then? Are they therefore a part of the foregoing Treatise? What a wretched Judgement must that needs be, that can draw so strange a Conclusion? Here I cannot but return you that Story, which once, I remember, you told me, of that poor Country Person who would needs have the Book-binder's Leaf to be a part of his Bible: He was told, it came after the Index that was in that Bible, and was not at all to the Purpose; no matter for that, it was Printed, he said, in the very same Letter, and must therefore needs be a Part. If you pitied the Simpleness of that poor Man, what, Sir, will you say, when you see even Learned and otherwise Worthy Men so much prostitute their Judgements to Resentment and the serving of a Cause, that rather than not be Revenged on the saucy Publisher of so pestilent a Treatise, and supply their Adherents with an Antidote against it, they will let themselves down to the lowest degree of Absurdness? We grant that our Treatise and the Canons, that follow it, are written in a Hand somewhat different from the rest of the Volume: But what can be thence concluded? Are our Adversaries so extremely Strangers to MS. Volumes, as not to know, that, as they consist very often of several Treatises, and of several Hands, so many times they have two Tracts together, or more, of one Hand? This is true in particular of that very Volume, out of which our Treatise was published. The other Parts of the Volume, besides our Treatise and the Canons, are not all written in the same Hand, but in several: In one Hand two or three Treatises, in another two or three Others; it being made up of the Pieces of several Volumes bound together.  
First, Sir, it is to be observed, That he that Transcribed that Volume, out of which the Leaves of our Treatise and the Canons were taken, and put into that in which they now lie; He, I say, that Transcribed our Treatise and the Canons, seems himself to have took 'em for two distinct Pieces: For between the Abstract, or Summary, of the Treatise and the Beginning of the Canons, there is somewhat a wider Space, than between the Lines of the Treatise, or between the Treatise and the Abstract of it. And what (I pray) if the Canons had been written just close upon the Treatise? I can show you some Scores of Examples of Collections or Treatises wholly distinct, so closely connected in the Writing, without any Note of Distinction, that no one, but he that reads 'em, can possibly take 'em to be distinct. Who so little acquainted with this sort of Learning, as not to know, that Librarians, or Transcribers of Books, were oftentimes ignorant Persons, that did not at all understand what they wrote, but, like Horace's Painter, joined oftentimes the Head of a Man to the Neck of a Horse?  
In the Second place it is to be observed, That the Treatise as it is in the MS. and as it is published, is thus concluded: TO CONCLUDE ALL IN A WORD; ONE THING ONLY was required by the Church (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc.) that the new Bishop should profess the same (Orthodox) Faith with the other that was deposed, but as for other Complaints and Accusations, except it were Heresy, she never made any Examination into them. What Person of so little Sagacity and Judgement, as not to see, that here the whole Treatise is ended?  
In the Third place, I shall give you as clear and plain a Demonstration, as can possibly be brought for the Confirmation of any thing of this Nature. It is this: Between the Conclusion of the Treatise, and the foresaid Collection of Canons, there comes in, in the MS. the Abstract or Summary of the Treatise, which stands, as it were, for an Index, as 'tis published in borh the Editions. I cannot but admire, how it possibly could enter into any Man's Head, that that is a part of the Treatise, which follows the Abstract or Epitome of the Treatise.  
In the Fourth place, it is to be obsetved, and this is likewise as clear a Demonstration as any one can possibly desire, That the Canons which follow our Treatise are barely transcribed, not at all connected by any words of the Transcriber; Not a word of his in either the beginning, or the end, or mixed with 'em, as I know by comparing them with those that are Printed; When yet it is certain, that the Author of our Treatise does every where use his own Style. Neither does he make any mention, in any part of his Treatise, that he would subjoin any Canons. If the Canons had belonged to the Treatise, 'tis absurd to imagine that the Author would have said nothing of 'em, not expressed his Design in transcribing 'em. And if he had produced 'em, as our Adversaries would have it believed, to show that in the foregoing Treatise, he understood only a Synodical Deprivation, why does he not somewhere say so? Why make no mention of a Synodical Deprivation? Why leave us to judge of his meaning by his gaping?  
This News, Sir, I know, will surprise you, which I tell you concerning the bareness of the Canons, that they are nakedly transcribed without any one Word added by the Transcriber; For you tell me, I remember, in your Letter, that they that talk of this Matter, are wont to bring this for an Argument that the Canons belong to the Treatise, That there are added some Words at the end of the Canons, which plainly refer to the Treatise. And for this, as you say, the Authority of a very great Man is wont to be quoted. Let me tell you, Sir, I can now 〈◊〉 about with a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. It is true, The thing has been all along confidently affirmed by a very great Man, as you very deservedly call him: But take my Word for't, You will hear no more of that Matter. I enquired, Sir, lately of that Learned and otherwise very Accurate Person, What Words those were which he meant; and I found he had mistaken a Part of the last of the Canons for the Words of the Transcriber. This is strange, you will say: I, for my part, shall say nothing of it; but leave it for others to judge. But this I must add, that the Words which were alleged by that Gentleman to be the Transcriber's own, supposing they were the Transcriber's, (as we know very well they are not) do contain nothing in 'em, that could prove the Transcriber to have been the same Man with our Author. There is nothing from whence it might be gathered that the Canons did belong to our Treatise; not a Tittle from whence it might be proved that our Author therefore transcribed 'em, to show that he meant a Synodical Deprivation. You will judge of this by and by, by reading the Words yourself. You will easily see, that Men, whose Eyes have contracted a Yellowness (whatsoever otherwise their Temper or Constitution may be,) read every thing agreeably to the Colour in their Heads.  
I come now lastly to the Canons themselves; Let them speak for themselves: We need nothing else to refute the strange Fancy and Dream of our Adversaries. The Argument, you know, of the Treatise, is to show by many Examples, That it's contrary to the Practice of the Ancients, for a Bishop unjustly deposed to recede from 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 lawful Presbyter: against a Presbyter or a Deacon's withdrawing from the Communion of his Bishop without a just Cause: that a Bishop being condemned 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 condemned: 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 lie 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 condemned 
* Not. That the seeming supposition of th●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 composed the Canon, intended that the Bishop should be judicially and Canonically condemned for the Crime alleged against him by the Presbyter, though the words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, do not plainly express it.  by him for any Impiety or Injustice, let him be deprived 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 Deprived, 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 despised 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 Chapels 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 deposed, and let him be uncapable for ever of being restored to his Honour, and the Cure of Souls. And if he goes on to raise Troubles and Seditions in the Church, let him be punished by the Civil Power as a Rioter. How could this Canon be produced by the Author of our Treatise as pertinent to the Subject of it? What's this to a Bishop deprived 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 accused of any Crimes, shall be condemned by all the Bishops of the Province, and all shall unanimously agree in the Sentence against him, he may not be judged again by others, but the Sentence passed unanimously by the Bishops of the Province, shall be valid. This Canon was made to prevent Appeals, which a Bishop deprived 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 only 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 called 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 pitched on another Method, and endeavours to divide the Body of Christ, by the Madness of Schismatics▪ The holy Council, in order to prevent this Snare as well as the other, has decreed, That if any Presbyter or Deacon having condemned his Bishop for any Crimes, shall dare to depart from his Communion, and refuse to recite his Name in the Public Prayers of the Church, according to the usual Custom, before he be Synodically tried and perfectly condemned, that Person shall be deposed and deprived of all his Honour in the Priesthood. For any one placed in the order of a Presbyter, if he takes upon him to prevent the judgement 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 deprived 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 public Service of the Church according to Custom, before he is Synodically tried; the holy Council decrees he be deposed, 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 Patriarches. 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 tried, and perfectly condemned; the holy Synod ordains, That, upon Proof made of such a Schism, he be deposed. 
* Here begin the Words which the Learned Mr. D▪— to k to be the Words not of the Canon, but the Transcriber.  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 condemned by the holy Fathers and Councils, he publicly 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 honoured as becomes true Believers. For in such a case they do not condemn true Bishops, but false Ones and they do not break the Unity 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 immediately in the MS. is altogether foreign 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 raised so great Expectation, and been made the common Defence of those that have been pressed with the Authority of the Oxford Antiquity. When you light on any of the Adversaries of the Oxford Antiquity, pray show '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 judicious, 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 show 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 only 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 only against a Separation from our Bishops, and the throwing off Canonical Obedience upon our own private Judgements 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 condemned and deprived. This is still the Doctrine of our Church; and what we in England call Legal, the Greeks, when they spoke with relation to Bishops, called 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 Emperor, were constituted the ordinary Judges of the Causes of Bishops.  
I shall here add, that it is easy for any Man of Judgement to observe, That therefore the Canons, which we have above produced, were by some Body tacked 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, though they have not any Pertinency or Relation to the Formal or Particular Subject of it, The adhering to an Orthodox Bishop in possession, though the former Bishop was unjustly turned 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 heaped together such Things as seemed 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 dispersed up and down according to the Subject of the Treatise foregoing. Hence likewise many Fragments of the Fathers subjoined to Discourses of Divinity, and others out of the Historians subjoined to Historical Treatises, and the like. A Thousand Instances of this may be easily produced, 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 owe to the Baroccian Volume, there is at this time extant another in France. It is mentioned 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 
* Offendi pariter in opusculo nunc inedito, olim si Deus dederit ●dendo, De celebri Schismate ob Josephum Presbyterum, haec verba. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 645.  Concerning the famous Schism which was raised 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 produced by Cotelerius out of it, and is in the very same words in our Treatise. Since I published the Treatise, I received this Observation from the Famous and Learned Mr. Dodwel. Now if any one is so very unwilling to be convinced, 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, though 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 subjoined at the end of the Treatise. And the Reason is plain, viz▪ Because they were either transcribed 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 annexed to it by some ancient Librarian. Concerning the Schism which was raised upon the account of josephus 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 beg your leave to observe, that the Council called First and Second, to which the Three last of the Canons above translated, do belong, was a Council called under Photius the Patriarch of Constantinople; in which the said Photius, though made a Patriarch by the Emperor when Ignatius the Patriarch was unjustly deposed by the emperor's bare Authority, was received and owned as rightful Patriarch, and that whilst Ignatius was living. And 'tis further observable, That that same Council consisted of so many Bishops as to be called 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 published, and very much talked 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 espoused it, think fit to give it a Paint; though all the World knows, It is not its Natural Colour, and it plainly appears to be Daubing. We have been now so Civil and Gentile to our Adversaries, as to clean ourselves 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 prepared to close-in, whensoever they please to come on. We are not Concerned 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 admired, that they that are engaged in this Schism are so little moved and persuaded 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. jerom uses those Words: 
* Moors meorum, says he, in the Person of a Luciferian, apprime novi, facilius eos vinci posse quam persuaderi.  I know very well their Temper, that 'tis easier to conquer 'em, than to persuade 'em. 'Twas, you know, the Luciferian Schismatics, of whom he speaks so. And St. Augustine, I remember, makes 
* 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.  Complaint of Emeritus, the Champion of the Schismatical Donatists, that, though in the Conference between 'em, he was so far Confounded, as not to have a Word to say, yet he still continued in his Schism, as if He himself had been Conqueror. 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 showing 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 unconcerned 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 engaged in the Defence of their Schism: For they be Writing, still make make it more hard to be convinced, 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 lie, 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 Romantic 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; though the Walls, that look towards us, are extremely 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 misspend 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 pleased, 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 itself to deprive a Bishop of his Bishopric, 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 jure Divino with this only 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 established, 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 only as might well consist with the Safety and the Essentials of Government. From hence it follows, that none has received 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 received, allowed 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 constitute others who are willing to submit to the State, and whom the State shall approve of as fit to be trusted by it in that Post. Thus for Matters of Heresy; Christ has given no Authority to any to preach in his Name, or to govern in his Church, but on this Condition, that they preach and maintain the true Faith. If that Condition be not observed, the Church is then to deprive 'em. In the Case of Heresy it belongs to the Church to Deprive, that being the proper Judge of that Question, What is the true Faith? In the Case of Rebellion, or of Non-submission to the Government, it belongs to the Government, as being the proper Judge of what is necessary for its own Support.  
I lay down this as a Principle, on which both the Power of the Church, of Depriving for Spiritual, and likewise the Power of the State, of Depriving for Political Crimes, does depend.  
Query, What Security the Civil Government, which is God's own Institution, and antecedent to the Ecclesiastical, can have, if a Bishop, that refuses to own it, and to submit to its Authority, may not be Deprived by it? What Security can it have, Especially considering, that Men of that Character are generally Persons of very great Power and Authority, and may easily go a great way in the Subversion of a Government, by the Influence of their Eloquence, and their great Reputation for Learning and Piety? In such a Case is the Bishop to be Deprived by a Synod of Bishops? Here a Second Query will follow, What if all the Bishops, that are under a Government should conspire against it? And what if we suppose, that there's only one Bishop within the Bounds of that Government, a thing that has often happened; What must be done in that Case? Will our Adversaries grant, that, supposing a Bishop should conspire against the Government or Rebel, the Government has Authority to imprison him, or to banish him; but not to Deprive him of his Bishopric, so as that another may be placed in his See? If this be the Plea of our Adversaries, I shall then desire to be satisfied in one Query more. How does this consist with the Nature and End of Church Government? How can He continue a Pastor that is utterly banished from his Flock, and rendered utterly uncapable of doing the Duty of his Charge? Shall the Neighbour Bishops be his Delegates, and act by his Power and Authority? But what if we recur to our former Supposition, that all the Bishops of a Kingdom are Rebels? When they are all banished by the State, who then must govern the Church? Who ordain, and do other Duties that are proper to a Bishop? Or supposing that there is but one Bishop; when he is sent into perpetual Banishment, how must his Office be supplied? When in the first Planting of the Christian Religion in the several Parts of the World there was only one Bishop in a Country, as at first in many Countries there was only one, if that one had been banished for Rebellion, pray, what should the Christians there planted have done? Should they have lived without any Bishop during all his Life that was banished, or ought they not rather to have got a new one to govern 'em, to supply the Church with inferior Clergy, and the like? Here, Sir, I shall put you in mind of those words of the great St. Chrysostom, which are urged in the Preface to the Oxford Antiquity; when he was unjustly banished he charged his People, That as they hoped for Salvation, they should be obedient to that Bishop who should succeed him as to himself, For the Church, says he, cannot be without a Bishop. And yet it is certain, that that great Man did never resign his Bishopric, but continued to act as a Bishop of the Catholic Church during all the time of his Banishment, that is, as long as he lived. I shall only add, that if the Banishment of a Bishop be not designed to be perpetual, as that of St. Chrysostom was, but only for a Time, than there may not be any Necessity that another should be placed in his See. And this was the Reason, why, when St. Athanasius, the Patriarch of Alexandria, was banished by the Emperor Constantine, there was no new Patriarch created. That He was banished only for a Time, and that the Emperor Constantine intended to recall him, and to restore him to his Bishopric, is expressly attested by the Younger Emperor Constantine in his 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. jam cum inprimis vestrae in Deum pietati, s●aeque Sedi hunc Episcopum Dominus Deus noster & Pater Constantinus restituere vellet, & humana 〈…〉 hoc votum impleret, requieverit, ego mihi convenire puto, ut susceptae volunta●e sacrae memori●e▪ Imperatoris, id ipsum adimpleam, quod ille non potuit. Apud Athanasi● ad Imp. Const. Apolog. p. 806.  Letter to the Church of Alexandria, by which he restores him to his See. Who adds, that he himself by restoring him, did only fulfil his Father's Will: who, he says, would have done it himself if he had not been prevented by Death. And Pope julius in his Synodical 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ap. S. Athan. Apol. ad Imp. Const. p. 784.  Epistle to the Synod of Antioch, concludes, That the Emperor Constantine did not fully and perfectly condemn Athanasius, because there was no one put into his Place, during the time of his Banishment. If, says he, He had fully condemned him, his See would have been disposed of to another.  
The Solution, Sir, of these Queries, which I have proposed, will prove, if I am not mistaken, a Work of no great Ease. I should gladly see the Knot fairly untied, without any Cutting and Violence. We will see on the contrary, if you please, how easily those Knots may be loosed, which our Adversaries are wont to present us, as the greatest effects of their Skill.  
Ob. 1. How does it consist with the Safety of the Church and of Religion, if the Secular Governor has Authority to turn out a Bishop? Then all Bishops may depend on his Sentence, and the Church and Religion be precarious. An Orthodox Bishop may be deposed, and a Heretic placed in his See.  
Ans. It cannot be avoided but that the Church and Religion must be always, in some measure, Precarious, and depend upon the Civil Magistrate. If the Governor be an Enemy to Religion▪ there is no avoiding Oppression, wheresoever we lodge the true Power of Depriving a Bishop. Now to answer directly the Objection: If the Civil Governor should turn out our Orthodox Bishops, and put in Heretics in their Places, or put in none at all in their places, than the Church is obliged to adhere to the old Ones turned out, or, if there be a necessity, to procure new Ones that are Orthodox. Thus if the Civil Magistrate should forbid the Christian Religion to be preached in his Country, he is not to be obeyed, because it is the Will of our Saviour that his Gospel should be preached to all Nations, as far as the Preaching of it does consist with those Rules that are truly essential to Government. And when Decius the Emperor aimed to root out the Christian Religion in the City of Rome by destroying the Bishop Fabianus, and forbidding that any new Bishop should be Created in his Place; there was no Obligation on the Christians of that Church to obey his Will or Decree, since they did not pretend to choose such a Person as refused to submit to his Government. And therefore, though they deferred the Election of a new Bishop for above Sixteen Months, for fear of the Emperor, who then resided are Rome, Propter rerum & temporum difficultates, as the Clergy tell St. Cyprian in a Letter, yet as soon as the Emperor was engaged in a Civil War, and had therefore removed from that City, they set about an Election, and placed Cornelius in the Chair. This Principle will secure Religion from depending on the Will of a Governor no less than that of our Adversaries, who would have Bishops to be Deprivable only by Bishops. That likewise may have its ill Consequences, for what if those Bishops, who are supposed to Deprive another, should themselves be Heretical, or no true Friends to the Church?  
This Rule is still to be observed, 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 advanced as may make 'em wage War with one another. So to order the Temporal Government as not to have Regard to the Spiritual, is Profaneness, 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 Caesar's.  
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 deprived of his particular Bishopric, 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 designed 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 deprived of their Orders by the Civil Power, but their Commission which they received from Christ to exercise the Office of a Bishop in that particular Place, is of itself void, as being given only on Condition, as soon as they appear to be Enemies to the Government, and are so declared. Look they, I say, to that. But it is not our opinion, that a Bishop is utterly Degraded whensoever he is justly Deprived. 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 Bishopric, how can a Bishop remain a Bishop after Resignation? How can he be restored after (lawful) Deprivation without a new Ordination? How can he be translated without a new Ordination from one Bishopric to another, if, when he was Ordained, he was only Ordained to this or that particular Bishopric? How can he Ordain, or do the Offices of a Bishop, out of his own Diocese? If the People of his City or Diocese should be all destroyed by Wars, or be utterly dispersed 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 observed concerning St. Chrysostom.  
Tho it be not my Design at present to enter upon the Authority of the Ancients, yet I cannot forbear to take notice of a very strange Weakness of Judgement (for so I must call it) which Lucifer Calaritanus has discovered 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' 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 Deprived; but his meaning is, that he could not be Deprived by the Emperor. So he says: But how does he prove it? He does not pretend to Tradition, 
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 fuer●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 jesum Nave. Loquitur Scriptura Sancta, dicens, & jesus 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.  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 joshuah 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 Diocese, 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 urged from the Scripture by that over Passionate, though Orthodox, Bishop. It is true, that the Emperor did very ill in turning out St. Athanasius unjustly, and in putting a Heretic into his Place. This we know. It is likewise true, that our Author deserved very well for his Zeal against the Arian Heretics: But this however I must say, that he manages the Cause with much more Heat and Irreverence than judgement. We may dare to affirm he had no great stock of the latter: And it is not at all to be wondered at, that He afterwards proved a Schismatic. 'tis further alleged 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 Condemned to Death for not submitting to the Doctrine of the Catholic 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; though 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 die, and thou shalt put away the evil from Israel. After all I must add, That the Cruelty of that Emperor Constantius to the Catholic Bishops, may be pleaded to excuse both Lucifer, who himself suffered Banishment, and also some other Bishops of that Age, who were so far provoked 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. 'Tis, Sir, a merry Question, that which you are pleased 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 alleged, 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 judged 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. 
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 obsequon●● 〈◊〉 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 jesu Christi, qui unus & solus habet potestatem & praeponendi nos in Ecclesiae suae gubernation, & de actu nostro judicandi.  The Occasion of them was this: There was a Controversy between St. Cyprian and Pope Stephanus of Rome, concerning the Rebaptising of such as had been Baptised by Heretics or Schismatics. St. Cyprian and the Synod were for it. But they would not, they say, take upon 'em to Anathematise those Bishops that did not agree with 'em in that Matter; but would leave it to them to act according to their Judgements, and would let the Matter alone to be fully determined by Christ at the Day of Judgement, he being the proper Judge of the Actions of Bishops in a Thing of that Nature.  
2. That a Bishop ought not to be prescribed to in the ordering of the Affairs of his Church, but that he is to govern according to his own Judgement, and to give an account of his Actions to God.  
These Words are spoken on the same occasion, and in the same sense, 
Haec ad conscientiam tuam, Erater carissime, & pro honore communi, & pro simplici dilectione pertulimus, credentoes 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 act●s sui Domino redditurus. Epist. 71.  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, 
Quâ in parte nemini verecundia & modestia nostra a praejudicat, quo minus unusquisque quod putat, sentiat, & quod senserit, faciat. Nos quantu concipit mediocritas nostra, aestimamus etc. 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 quod B. Apostolus in Epistolâ suâ ad Rom. scribit, ac dicit: Vnusquisque nostrûm pro se rationem dabit; non ergo nos invicem judicemus. Epist. 69.  being converted to the Faith in the time of Sickness, were Baptised by Sprinkling only, Whether they ought to be looked 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 Judgements. 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, 
Et quidem apud Antecessores nostros quidam de Episcopis istic in Provincia nostrâ dandam pacem moechis non putaverunt, & in totum poenitentiae locum contra adulteria clauserunt; non tamen à Co-episcoporum suorum Collegio recesserunt, aut Catholicae Ecclesi 〈…〉 ●uritia vel censurae sua obstinatione ruperunt; ut quia apud alios adulteris pax dab●tur, qui non dabat, de Ecclesiâ separaretur. Manente Concordiae vinculo, & perseverante Catholicae Ecclesia individuo sacramento, actum suum disponit & dirigit unusquisque Episcopus, rationem propositi sui Domino redditurus. Epist. 55.  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 practised accordingly.  
As also in an Epistle to Cornelius Bishop of Rome, wherein he complains, that some of his Factious Presbyters, who had been condemned 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, 
Nam cum statistum sit ab omnibus nobis, & aequum sit pariter ac justum, ut uniuscujusque causa illic audiatur, ubi est crimen admissum, & singulis Pastoribus portio gregis sit adscripta, quam regat unusquisque & gubernet, rationem sui actûs Domino redditurus; oportet utique eos, quibus praesumus, non circumcursare, nec Episcoporum concordiam cohaerentem suâ subdolâ & fallaci temeritate collidere, sed agere illic causam suam, ubi & accusatores habere & testes sui criminis possint; nisi si paucis desperatis & perditis minor videtur esse auctoritas Episcoporum in Africâ constitutorum, qui jam de illis judicaverunt, & eorum conscientiam multis delictorum laqueis vinctam judicii sui nuper gravitate damnarunt. Ep. 59  and likewise to reason and equity, that a Cause should be tried 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 Judgements, 
Quanquam bene sibi conscius animus, & Evangelicae disciplinae vigore subnixus, & verus sibi in Decretis caelestibus testis effectus, soleat solo Deo judice esse contentus, nec alterius aut laudes petere, aut accusationes pertimescere: tamen geminatâ sunt laude condigni, qui cum conscientiam sciant Deo soli debere se judici, actus tamen suos desiderant, etiam ab ipsis suis Fratribus compro, bari. Quod te, Frater Cyprian, facere non mirum est, qui pro tuâ verecundiâ & ingenitâ industria, consiliorum tuorum non tam judices voluisti, quam participes inveniri, etc. Ep. 30.  when he was not at all obliged, but had power as a Bishop to act in a thing of that nature according to his own judgement, 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 gathered 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. 
After he had said that the power of Binding and Losing was committed to the Apostles, he subjoins, Ind per temporum & successionum vices, Episcoporum ordinatio, & Ecclesiae ratio decurrit, ut Ecclesia super Episcopos constituatur: & omnes actus Ecclesiae per eosdem actus gubernetur. Cum h●c itaque Divinâ lege fundatum sit, miror quosdam nudaci temeritate, etc.  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 Losing.  
5. That it is an extreme Insolence to pretend to pass judgement 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. 
Ind enim Schismata & Harese obortae sunt & oriuntur, dum Episcopus, qui ●nus est, & Ecclesiae praeest, superbâ quorundam praesumptione con●emnitur, & homo dignatione Dei honoratus, indignus ab hominibus judicatur. Quis enim hic ●st superbiae tumour, quae arrogantiae animi, quae mentis inflatio ad cognitionem suam Praeposit●s ac Sacerdotes vocare; ac nisi apud te purgati fuerimus, & sententiâ tuâ absoluti, ecce jan● sex annis, nec Fraternitas habuerit Episcopum, nec Plebs Praepositum, nec grex Pastorem, nec Ecclesia Gubernatorem, nec Christus Antistitem, nec Deus Sacerdotem? etc. Ep. 66.  He writes it to Pupianus a Confessor, who upon the account of some very ill things which St. Cyprian's Adversaries had maliciously accused him off, as committed before he was a Bishop, had withdrawn himself from his Communion.  
6. That to make one's 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 judgement 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, 
Ep. 55. Ad Anton.  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 Deprived for any Fault, and who never refused to acknowledge the Emperor's Authority. Our new Bishops are not secundi, but soli, since the old Ones are Legally Deprived.  
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 only convenient, but necessary for a Bishop to do so. For He, together with his Synod, call 
* See Epist. 64.  Therapius, a Bishop, to account, and severely reprimand him, for presuming to admit into the Church a Presbyter, that had lapsed, without the Consent of the Laity, From this Example it is further observable, that, though 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 derived, you will say, this Authority from the Consent of the Church. So Patriarches, 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 alleged) 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 Vin●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 Doctrine 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 Catholic Church spread over all the world, and defended the Unity of it by his Writings? In the same Epistle having quoted that place of St. Cyprian where he praises those African Bishops that refused 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 concerned for any thing, than least the bond of Unity 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 ancient 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 Emperor. 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 though in the time of Constantius some persecuted Bishops were pleased to deny that the Emperor had any Authority at all over Bishops, yet the Emperor Constantine himself (so great a Lover and Honourer of Bishops as he was) and likewise the succeeding Orthodox Emperors, did oftentimes Judge and Deprive Bishops by their own bare Authority: That the Church in the time of that Emperor, as well as in after Ages, submitted to and acknowleged that Authority: That those Ecclesiastical Canons which ordain that Bishops (even for Political Crimes) are to be deprived only by Bishops, did never oblige any Secular Government, but as they were allowed off, and so made Laws, by that Government. I could willingly give you a Forecast of a few illustrious Examples of Bishops deprived by the emperor's sole Authority, and the Church's owning and acknowledging that Authority; but I find I have already exceeded what first I designed on this Subject, and have done like a great many others, who, designing only a Lodge, have been in danger of building 'em a Seat. I shall now proceed to the second general Proposition which our Adversaries are desired to make out, which is this,  
2. That it is agreeable to the Practice of the Ancient Christians, for a Bishop unjustly deposed (whether by the Emperor, or by Bishops) to withdraw himself from the Communion of his Successor tho' his Successor were not a Heretic. 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 deprived, 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 mentioned in our Treatise, were not Deprived Synodically, or by Bishops, but by the emperor's sole Power and Authority. Neither did they resign their Bishoprics, but were violently turned 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 esteemed, yet to wave all impertinent Disputes, and to show that what we assert is not grounded on that only 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 Pr●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 Deprived whether by the Emperor only 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 always professed a great and due regard for the general Practice of the Ancients.  
I must not conclude before I have told you, as I promised you, what Schism th●● was which was raised upon the account of josephus 〈◊〉 Presbyter, which, as appears by Cotelerius' 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 deposed by a Synod, whereof the Emp. Michael Palaeologus sat Precedent, partly for certain Crimes of which he was accused, but chiefly for Contumacy in refusing to give his Appearance. He knew that the Emperor was his Enemy, and therefore he pleaded that 'twas contrary to the Canons for Him to sit Judge in the Cause of a Bishop. The Synod (a very great one) both acknowleged and asserted the Emperor's Authority, and alleged, it was agreeable both to Reason and the Practice of the Ancients. Germanus Bishop of Adrianople, who was put into Arsenius' Place, resigning after a few Months, josephus, the Emperor's Confessor and an Abbot, was advanced to that Honour. Hence a rose a famous Schism amongst the Monks and the Common-people, some adhering to Arsenius, as unjustly Deprived, others being averse to josephus because they looked 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 Wellwisher▪ to Arsenius▪ that in all the Church there were but Three Bishops that engaged in the Schism, viz. those of Alexandria, Thessalonica and S●ndi●. 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' Place, whilst he was alive; for they presently began it, as it plainly appears from Pachymeres, as soon as Arsenius was deprived, before his Place was filled up; that is, they withdrew from the Communion (not of the Church in general, but only) of those Bishops that Deprived Him: so Pachymeres expressly says of the Bishop of Alexandria.— Those Persons that refused to Communicate with josephus upon the Account of Arsenius' Deprivation, the Author of our Treatise endeavours to convince, by showing by many Examples of Bishops unjustly Deprived, part of them by Synods, and part by the Emperor 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 assured what Schism that was, that occasioned 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' Patriarchate, viz. in the Year 1267▪ for josephus was consecrated Patriarch the First of january 126● as may castly be shown, tho' Petrus Possinus would have it to be a Year later. This at least is apparent, that 〈…〉 which happened on the last of Sept. 1273. for it plainly appears from the Treatise, that the Patriarch, for whose sake the Schism was raised, was alive when the Treatise was writ. It may further be gathered 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' being promoted to the Patriarchate, and before he speaks of the Patriarch Veccus' Banishment; which happened both on the foresaid Year. Here, Sir, I must retract what I formerly conjectured (though 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 published his Eccl. History, and yet when he published it, Andronicus the Emperor (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 
* Itaque longissimam etiam tibi vitam (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) qu● bona omnia, pro eo atque decuit, omnino in unum collegeris, obtigisse existimo: ut ex temporis diuturnitate ad incrementum gloriae hoc tibi accederet, etc. p. 20. There is mention made before p. 7. of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Emperor, which the Interpreter renders, aetatis flos & vigour. But that's a mistake: he ought to have rendered it there, flos venustatis. The Author flatters the old Emp. and tells him of the Symmetry of his Parts, and his florid Complexion.  Dedication. There needs no Argument to confirm so clear a Demonstration. Yet others may be produced, as that which we ourselves formerly urged in the foresaid Preface, as an Objection against the Conjecture we had made; that the Author of our Treatise ranks the Patriarches of CP. that governed in the time of the Emp. Isaacius Angelus, in this Order; Basilius, Nicetas, Leontius, Dositheus, Xiphilinus: But Nicephorus, in a MS. Catalogue of the Patriarches of CP. thus: Basilius, Nicetas, Dositheus, Leontius, Dositheus again, Xiphilinus. To which may be added, that the Predecessor of Macedonius, that was deposed by the Emp. Anastasius, is by Nicephorus both in his Catalogue and in his Hist. named 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 only an Error of the Librarian, though he be so called in Three places; but since I have observed, that by the more Modern Greeks he was usually so named. He is so called 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, called, The Oxford Antiquity Examined, and are pleased 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 str●k● on a Thing that is Hollow and Empty, which can only 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 reduced 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 wriggles 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 the Publisher and even the Licenser of that Treatise. Here it comes into my Head what a Friend of ours said, when I showed 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 sound Brushed!  
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 o● your Friend. I thank you, Sir, for that good Advice which you give me▪ But hear again I must blame you, for forgetting me so far, as to fear I may be capable of ●eing disturbed 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 myself very unhappy, and but a very mean Profi●●●● in Philosophy, when any House's o● Detractions, of either the Angry or the Envious, can so much move me as to turn me any way from my Duty. 'Tis a brisk ●aying▪ you know, of Gaulminus, Scio & mer●ri & far invi●iam▪ The Mereri, I have nothing to say to, I leave that to Gaulminus, and the rest of his Fellow-Pretenders; but the Far, I myself do pretend to. Be pleased to tell my Encomiasts, when you hear any of 'em Harangue, that I never thought the World so much a Utopia, as not to expect their Eulogiums. May they long and freely enjoy their own Humours, as I am resolved 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.