A Day or Two ago, upon my Return out of the Country, I receiv'd your Letter, which had lain some time expecting me: In which you are pleas'd 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 publish't; That there are some Canons belonging to it omitted, which would, if publisht, have unravel'd the Whole. I had heard of such a Report before I receiv'd your Letter, but I rather admir'd at the Heat and Iudgment of those [Page 2] that first rais'd it, then 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 Judg­ments were determin'd by so strong a Biuss of Resent­ment and Zeal for a Cause, that all men must easily perceive it. I could not perswade my self, 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 Shiftings our Adversaries were reduc'd. 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 stigmatiz'd, when even Cecilianus, the great Arch-Bishop of Carthage, was, by the Schismatical Donatists, call'd downright Nebulo. Knave, in a Letter to the Emperour Constantine; and that too, tho He himself had Iudicially acquitted him, and declar'd him a worthy Arch-Bishop. 'Tis this is the Humour, and indeed the Vnhappiness, 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 try'd. 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 [Page 3] 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 bespatter'd, 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 rais'd was very strong and impregnable, well-man'd 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 perswaded, that tho there was an Ap­pearance of many Brave Men upon the Walls, yet there lay in the Town conceal'd, a much stronger Party, Well-wishers to Them, that would shew 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, con­tinu'd, and by many believ'd. And the Author of a Pamphlet entitl'd, An Apology for the New Separa­tion, &c. has made a publick Complaint of my Disin­genuity in this matter? He says, he is assur'd 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 shews plainly, that the Author [Page 4] [...] the Tract, when he contends, That A Bishop un­justly depos'd ought not to make a Division in the Church provided his Successor be Orthodox, is to be understood of onely a Synodical Deprivation; By which he means, that the Author of the Treatise supposes, that, if a Bishop unjustly depriv'd, be depriv'd by a Secular Power, and not by a Synod of Bishops, then he is not oblig'd not to make a Separation. Upon this ac­count, I see 'tis high time to rowse up my self a little, since the Philistins 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 your self may judge what a Nothing that is, that has made such a Bounce; that 'tis onely meer Powder, that can hurt no one else but the Person that Fires.

In the first place, Sir, I must assure you, That when I transcrib'd 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 Iudgment, and not to an ill Design, that they are omitted. I perus'd 'em, I remember, at that time, and they seem'd to me (as still they do) not at all to belong to the Treatise. They are written, I grant, in the same hand, and immediatly follow the Treatise, but (for God-sake!) what then? Are they therefore a part of the foregoing Treatise? What a wretched Judgment 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 [Page 5] 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 pittied the Simpleness of that poor Man, what, Sir, will you say, when you see even Learned and otherwise Worthy Men so much prostitute their Judg­ments to Resentment and the serving of a Cause, that rather then not be Reveng'd 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 extreamly 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 publisht. 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 observ'd, That he that Tran­scrib'd that Volume, out of which the Leaves of our Treatise and the Canons were taken, and put into that in which they now ly; He, I say, that Tran­scrib'd our Treatise and the Canons, seems himself to [Page 6] 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 shew you some Scores of Examples of Collections or Treatises wholy 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, join'd oftentimes the Head of a Man to the Neck of a Horse?

In the Second place it is to be observ'd, That the Treatise as it is in the MS. and as it is publisht, is thus concluded: TO CONCLUDE ALL IN A WORD; ONE THING ONELY was requir'd by the Church ( [...] &c.) that the new Bishop should profess the same (Orthodox) Faith with the other that was depos'd, 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 Judgment, 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, [Page 7] which stands, as it were, for an Index, as 'tis pub­lisht 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 obsetv'd, and this is likewise as clear a Demonstration as any one can possibly desire, That the Canons which follow our Treatise are barely transcrib'd, not at all connected by any words of the Transcriber; Not a word of his in either the beginning, or the end, or mixt 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 belong'd to the Treatise, 'tis ab­surd to imagine that the Author would have said no­thing of 'em, not exprest his Design in transcribing 'em. And if he had produc'd 'em, as our Adversa­ries would have it believ'd, to shew that in the fore­going Treatise, he understood onely 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 surprize you, which I tell you concerning the bareness of the Canons, that they are nakedly transcrib'd 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, [Page 8] 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 affirm'd 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 enquir'd, 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 alleg'd 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 gather'd that the Canons did be­long to our Treatise; not a Tittle from whence it might be prov'd that our Author therefore transcrib'd 'em, to shew that he meant a Synodical Deprivation. You will judge of this by and by, by reading the Words your self. 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 shew by many Examples, That it's contrary to the Practice of the Antients, for a Bishop unjustly de­pos'd to recede from the Communion of an Ortho­dox [Page 9] 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 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 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. 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 [Page 10] 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?

[Page 11] 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 [Page 12] 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. 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 [Page 13] 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 [Page 14] 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 [Page 15] 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 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 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 [Page 16] 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 [Page 17] 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 'tis further observa­ble, That that same Council consisted of so many Bishops as to be call'd by Balsamon, the learned Pa­triarch of Antioch, [...] a General Council.

And thus much, Sir, for our Canons. The next thing I observe in your Letter, is what you tell me concerning a very learned and elaborate Answer, which you say is ready to be publisht, and very much talkt on, against the Oxford Antiquity. As for that, Sir, It is no News to Me, and no more than I ever expected. You know, there must somewhat be said. That's a Business of course. And Schism is a Thing of so ugly and horrid an Aspect, that it is not a Wonder, if They that have rashly espous'd it, think fit to give it a Paint; tho all the World knows, It is not its Natural Colour, and it plainly appears to be Dawbing. We have been now so Civil and Gentile to our Adversaries, as to clean our selves of that Dirt, which they themselves cast upon us, before We are to enter upon the Struggle: You may tell 'em, Sir, We are ready and prepar'd to close-in, whensoever they please to come on. We are not Concern'd at what you say, That They are Great Men, Men of War from their Youth. For what avail the greatest Abilities, what avails the strongest Confederacy, when a Cause is not capable of Defence? What avails a great deal of Strength, when, like Milo, they are caught in an Oak? It is not, Sir, to be admir'd, that they that are engag'd in this Schism are so lit­tle mov'd and perswaded by the many Examples of [Page 18] those Great and Excellent Bishops, which the Oxford Antiquity presents 'em. You cannot but know, of whom it was that St. Ierom uses those Words: Mores 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 perswade 'em. 'Twas, you know, the Luciferian Schismaticks, 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, tho in the Conference between 'em, he was so far Confounded, as not to have a Word to say, yet he still continu'd in his Schism, as if He himself had been Con­querour. As it is a particular Complexion, and a great and strong Temptation of ei­ther Resentment or Ambition, or the tickling Satisfacti­on of being at the Head of a Party, that must hurry a Man on to so great a Sin as a Schism, so it must be a peculiar Grace that reduces one. It is not your car­rying a Light, that will make a Man follow you; not the shewing him the Road, that will make him go right, unless he has a Will to be directed. It is there­fore, I say, no matter at all of Wonder, if those many Examples and Authorities of the Oxford An­tiquity have not met with that agreeable success which a Man unconcern'd might very well have ex­pected: And, when I tell ye, We are ready to assert and defend that Doctrine, which our Treatise ad­vances against all the Opposition which our Adver­saries threaten, We are far from engaging to open a way for it to our Adversaries Hearts. That, I fear, [Page 19] is scarce to be expected; more especially of those whose Pens are now engag'd in the Defence of their Schism: For they be Writing, still make make it more hard to be convinc'd, and suck, like the Orator of old, a fatal Poison out of their own Pens. In short, Sir, I must tell ye; The Place, before which we ly, has, to Me, no other Appearance (you will pardon, Sir, the youthful Comparison) but that of a Castle En­chanted, and I shall not pretend to be so Romantick a Champion as to force it to a Surrender. Tho we know all the Arms it can possibly make use off, are very Weak and Insignificant; tho the Walls, that look to­wards us, are extreamly thin, and without any man­ner of Foundation; Whatsoever our Weapons may be, or our strength and dexterity in using 'em; There is still a SPIRIT within, that will keep it from being taken. Yet this I shall dare to pretend to; I shall dare en­gage to discover the Weakness of the Place, and to Throw up such Works round about it, as may hinder, like a Circle, the Sallies of the Obstinate Spirit, and secure all those, that are yet without, from the Charms it may lay upon 'em.

That We may not run on and mispend our Time, and Abuse the Patience of our Readers by Discourses not properly pertinent and close to the Matter depend­ing; When you meet with any of our Learned Adver­saries, the Emeriti of this Schism, who, you say, are publishing an Answer to our Treatise, and writing a Defence of their Revolt, Be pleas'd, Sir, to [...] desire 'em to demonstrate, if they can, the Two general Propositions which follow.

1. That the Civil Government has not any Autho­rity in it self to deprive a Bishop of his Bishoprick, who refuses to own it, and to submit to it. And here they [Page 20] are desired to consider, that the Civil Power or the Temporal Governors are no less of God's own Institu­tion than Bishops or the Governors of the Church, that both are equally Iure Divino with this onely differ­ence, that the former are instituted by God for our Peace and Happiness here in this World, the latter to conduct us to Happiness in that which is to come; That the Secular Government is antecedent to the Spiritual; That when Christ came into the world to establish a Church, he came not to abolish any Law that was necessary for the support of the Secu­lar Government, not to set up a Church that was any ways opposite to it; But that he himself submit­ted to the Secular Government which he found e­stablisht, and commanded his Followers to do so; That after his Death the Apostles likewise did so, and commanded likewise all their Followers and Suc­cessors to do the same, to submit to the Temporal Power as the Ordinance of God. It is plain that our Sa­viour by establishing a Church, intended the establish­ment of such things onely as might well consist with the Safety and the Essentials of Government. From hence it follows, that none has receiv'd any Power or Commission from Christ to preach the Gospel, or to preside over the Church in any Country, but with this Supposition, and on this Condition, that he own and submit to the Temporal Government which God has ordained in that Country. It is, I say, with this Supposition, That he gives his Bishops, and his Ministers, a Commission to preside over the Church, and to preach his Gospel in such or such a Country; It is upon the same Condition that the Church ap­points 'em to preside or preach in that Place; and it is upon the same Condition that they are receiv'd, [Page 21] allow'd off, and protected by the State. If there­fore they fail of the Performance of that necessary Condition, their Commission then ceases as to that particular Government, which they cannot, or will not submit to. They become Deprivable by the State, and the Church is to 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 observ'd, 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 De­priv'd 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 Depriv'd by a Synod [Page 22] 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 onely one Bishop within the Bounds of that Government, a thing that has often happen'd; 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 Bishoprick, so as that another may be plac'd 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 banish'd from his Flock, and render'd 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 banish'd 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 sup­ply'd? When in the first Planting of the Christian Religion in the several Parts of the World there was onely one Bishop in a Country, as at first in many Countries there was onely one, if that one had been banish'd for Rebellion, pray, what should the Chri­stians there planted have done? Should they have liv'd without any Bishop during all his Life that was banish'd, or ought they not rather to have got a new one to govern 'em, to supply the Church with inferi­our [Page 23] Clergy, and the like? Here, Sir, I shall put you in mind of those words of the great St. Chrysostom, which are urg'd in the Preface to the Oxford An­tiquity; when he was unjustly banish'd he charg'd his People, That as they hop'd 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 Bishoprick, but continued to act as a Bishop of the Catholick Church during all the time of his Banishment, that is, as long as he liv'd. I shall onely add, that if the Banishment of a Bishop be not design'd to be perpetual, as that of St. Chry­sostom was, but onely for a Time, then there may not be any Necessity that another should be plac'd in his See. And this was the Reason, why, when St. Athanasius, the Patriarch of Alexandria, was banish'd by the Emperour Constantine, there was no new Pa­triarch created. That He was banish'd onely for a Time, and that the Emperour Constantine intended to recall him, and to re­store him to his Bishoprick, is expresly attested by the Younger Emperour Constan­tine in his [...] &c. Iam 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 onely fulfil his Father's Will: who, he says, would have done it himself if he had not been prevented by Death. And Pope Iulius [Page 24] in his Synodical [...]. Ap. S. Athan. Apol. ad Imp. Const. p. 784. Epistle to the Synod of Antioch, con­cludes, That the Emperour 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 condemn'd him, his See would have been dis­pos'd of to another.

The Solution, Sir, of these Queries, which I have propos'd, 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 loos'd, 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 Governour 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 depos'd, and a Heretick 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 Magistrat. If the Governour 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 Governour should turn out our Orthodox Bishops, and put in Hereticks in their Places, or put in none at all in their places, then the Church is obliged to adhere to the old Ones turn'd out, or, if there be a necessity, to procure new Ones [Page 25] that are Orthodox. Thus if the Civil Magistrat should forbid the Christian Religion to be preach'd in his Country, he is not to be obey'd, because it is the Will of our Saviour that his Gospel should be preach'd 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 Emperour aim'd to root out the Christian Religion in the City of Rome by destroying the Bishop Fabianus, and for­biding 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 refus'd to submit to his Government. And therefore, tho they defer'd the Election of a new Bishop for above Sixteen Months, for fear of the Emperour, who then resided ar Rome, Propter rerum & temporum difficultates, as the Clergy tell St. Cyprian in a Letter, yet as soon as the Emperour was engag'd in a Civil War, and had therefore remov'd from that City, they set about an Election, and plac'd Cornelius in the Chair. This Principle will secure Religion from depending on the Will of a Governour no less than that of our Ad­versaries, who would have Bishops to be Deprivable onely by Bishops. That likewise may have its ill Consequences, for what if those Bishops, who are suppos'd to Deprive another, should themselves be Heretical, or no true Friends to the Church?

This Rule is still to be observ'd, that neither the Civil nor the Ecclesiastical Power may so far usurp upon one another as to lessen that Authority which is ne­cessary for the Subsistence of Each. Where on either side their Pretensions exceed their due Bounds, there all there Authority ceases. We must neither erect a [Page 26] Protestant Popedom, nor yet an Erastian Kingdom: Not so interpret one Text as make it fall out with ano­ther. There is, as in other Things, so likewise in this, a sort of an Analogy of Faith: As they both pro­ceed from God; so they cannot in their own Natures disagree in the least. Neither must there such Maxims be advanc'd as may make 'em wage War with one another. So to order the Temporal Government as not to have Regard to the Spiritual, is Prophaness, Irreligion and Atheism; and to lay down such Rules in Favour of the Spiritual as that it may Top upon the Temporal is no less a Crime than it is a Vanity. In a Word: He cannot give to God all the Things that areGods, that does not give to Cesar the Things that are Cesars.

Ob. 2. But it is not in the power of the Civil Go­vernment to take away that which it could not give, the Orders and Character of a Bishop.

Answ. This Objection supposes that when a Bishop is depriv'd of his particular Bishoprick, his Orders are taken away, and he is not any longer a Bishop. If the thing be so; look they to it, who refuse to submit to the Civil Government which God has set over 'em. It appears from what has been said, that our Saviour has given no Commission to exercise the Office of a Bishop in such a particular Place, but to such as sub­mit to the Government of that Country in which they reside: and if they are not Bishops but in that one Place where first they were design'd to preside, if they have not (I say) any larger Commission, then whenever they refuse to acknowledge the Civil Go­vernment, their whole Commission is void, and they are not any longer Bishops. They are not depriv'd of their Orders by the Civil Power, but their Com­mission which they receiv'd from Christ to exercise [Page 27] the Office of a Bishop in that particular Place, is of it self void, as being given only on Condition, as soon as they appear to be Enemies to the Government, and are so declar'd. Look they, I say, to that. But it is not our opinion, that a Bishop is utterly Degraded whensoever he is justly Depriv'd. Neither is it agree­able to the Notions and Practice of our Church. For if the Character of a Bishop does depend upon the having a Bishoprick, how can a Bishop remain a Bishop after Resignation? How can he be restor'd after (lawful) Deprivation without a new Ordina­tion? How can he be translated without a new Ordi­nation from one Bishoprick to another, if, when he was Ordain'd, he was only Ordain'd to this or that particular Bishoprick? How can he Ordain, or do the Offices of a Bishop, out of his own Diocess? If the People of his City or Diocess should be all destroy'd by Wars, or be utterly disperst and lost, how can he remain invested with the Character of a Bishop? And as it is not agreeable to the Doctrine and Practice of our Church, so neither to the general Notions and Practice of the Ancients, as shall easily and plainly be made out, as soon as Occasion is given. At pre­sent it will be enough, to remind you of what is a­bove observ'd concerning St. Chrysostom.

Tho it be not my Design at present to enter upon the Authority of the Antients, yet I cannot forbear to take notice of a very strange Weakness of Judg­ment (for so I must call it) which Lucifer Calaritanus has discover'd in his Books to the Emp. Constantius in behalf of St. Athanasius. He affirms, amongst other things, that another Bishop ought not to be put into St. Athanasius's Place, as was done at that time, be­cause Athanasius was living. By which he seems to [Page 28] intimate that a Bishop could not be at all Depriv'd; but his meaning is, that he could not be Depriv'd by the Emperor. So he says: But how does he prove it? He does not pre­tend to Traditi­on,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, cui (que) 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. or to lay it down as the Do­ctrine of the An­cients; but so he thinks fit to say, as being too angry to allow the Prince any Prerogative, and he proves it from hence, that Io­shuah did not succeed Moses till Moses was dead. What a strange Demon­stration that is! Yet so bad as it is, it holds as well against a Deprivation by Bishops, and likewise against a Deprivation by the People of the Diocess, which Lucifer himself in ano­ther place owns to be lawful, as against a Depriva­tion by the Prince: and so bad as it is, it is full as good, as a great many other Arguments, which are urg'd from the Scripture by that over Passionat, tho Orthodox, Bishop. It is true, that the Emperor did very ill in turning out St. Athanasius unjustly, and in [Page 29] putting a Heretick into his Place. This we know. It is likewise true, that our Author deserv'd very well for his Zeal against the Arian Hereticks: But this however I must say, that he manages the Cause with much more Heat and Irreverence than Iudgment. We may dare to affirm he had no great stock of the latter: And it is not at all to be wonder'd at, that He after­wards prov'd a Schismatick. Tis further alleg'd by the same Author against the said Persecuting Em­peror, that instead of being a Judge in the Cause of a Bishop, he ought by the Law of God to be Con­demn'd to Death for not submitting to the Doctrin of the Catholick Bishops. And this he proves from that place in Deuteronomy where God commands, that they that did not obey the Priests should be put to death; tho the Text be no other than this: (Deut. 17.12.) And the Man that will do presumptuously, and will not hearken unto the Priest (that standeth to minister there before the Lord thy God) nor unto the Judge, even that man shall dy, and thou shalt put away the evil from Israel. After all I must add, That the Cruelty of that Emperor Constantius to the Catholick Bishops, may be pleaded to excuse both Lucifer, who himself suf­fer'd Banishment, and also some other Bishops of that Age, who were so far provok'd as to deny that the Emperor had any Authority at all over Bishops, For, as Solomon says, Oppression maketh a Wise man mad.

Here, Sir, it comes into my mind, what you men­tion in your Letter concerning St. Cyprian, That there's nothing more usual with the Advocates for the New Separation, than to plead upon all Occa­sions the Authority of that excellent Father. 'Tis, Sir, a merry Question, that which you are pleas'd to ask me, Whether ever He wrote a Treatise by way [Page 30] 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. 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; tam (que) 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. The Oc­casion of them was this: There was a Contro­versy between St. Cyprian and Pope Stephanus of Rome, con­cerning the Re­baptizing of such [Page 31] 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,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 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 unusquis (que) 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 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 Baptiz'd by Sprinkling onely, Whe­ther [Page 32] 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,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 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 [Page 33] 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 uniuscujus (que) 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 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,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 Cypriane, facere non mirum est, qui pro tuâ verecundiâ & ingenitâ industria, consiliorum tuorum non tam judices voluisti, quam participes inveniri, &c. Ep. 30. 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.

[Page 34]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. After he had said that the pow­er of Binding and Loosing was com­mitted to the A­postles, he sub­joins, Inde 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, &c. 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.Inde enim Schis­mata & Hareses 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 tumor, 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? &c. Ep. 66. He writes it to Pupianus a [Page 35] 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, 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 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.

[Page 36]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 See Epist. 64. 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?

[Page 37]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 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 [Page 38] 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. [Page 39] 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 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 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 [Page 40] have 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 th [...] 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 'twas 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 S [...]ndi [...]. Of whom, the two last word the especial Friends and Creatures of Arsenius. Nei­ther did those Bishops make a Schism because ano­ther [Page 41] 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 126 [...] 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) [Page 42] 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 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, &c. p. 20. There is mention made before p. 7. of the [...] of the Emperour, which the In­terpreter renders, aetatis flos & vigor. But that's a mistake: he ought to have render'd 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 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 [Page 43] 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 str [...]k [...] 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 [Page 44] 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 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 o [...] your Friend. I thank you, Sir, for that good Advice which you give me▪ But here agen I must blame you, for [...]o [...] ­getting me so far, as to fear I may be capable of [...]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 Profi [...] in Philosophy, when any Houses 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 & ferre invi [...]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, [Page 45] 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