soli since the old Ones are Legally Depriv'd I must here observe that among all the Fathers there is no one speaks more for the Concurrence and Consent of the Laity in Matters relating to the ordering and governing of the Church than our Author St. Cyprian He declares in many places that he would not do any thing in this or that Matter relating to the Church till he had consulted both his Clergy and Laity as particularly in the Case of the Lapsi And he thinks it not onely convenient but necessary for a Bishop to do so For He together with his Synod call Therapius a Bishop to account and severely reprimand him for presuming to admit into the Church a Presbyter that had laps'd without the Consent of the Laity From this Example it is further observable that tho St. Cyprian speaks so much for the Equality of Bishops and that they are not responsable to one another for what they do as Bishops as in the Case of the Lapsi yet neither his own nor the general practice of his Age did truly agree with what he says By what Authority did St. Cyprian and his Synod pretend to call Therapius to account a Bishop as well as themselves How could they pretend to have Power to turn that Presbyter again out of the Church as they plainly intimate they had They deriv'd you will say this Authority from the Consent of the Church So Patriarchs Metropolitans Arch-Bishops are set over Bishops by the Consent of the Church tho' by Christ's Institution all Bishops are equal Query Whether the Consent of the Church of England were there nothing else to be alleg'd be not enough to justify a Lay-Deprivation If a Patriarch or Metropolitan can Deprive a Bishop by the Authority of the Church why may not a Lay-Iudge do the like I shall close this Discourse concerning the Authority of that Father with that Question or Expostulation which I find in St. Augustine his 48 Ep. to Vinâ—entius the Rogatist a Sect of the Schismatical Donatists who had laid a great deal of Stress on the Authority of that Father for the Doctrin of Re-Baptism If you are delighted says he and so say I to our Adversaries with the Authority of the holy Bishop and glorious Martyr Cyprianus which we do not hold to be equal to the Authority of Scripture why do you not imitate him in this that he held Communion with the Catholick Church spread over all the world and defended the Vnity of it by his Writings In the same Epistle having quoted that place of St. Cyprian where he praises those African Bishops that refus'd to re-admit Adulterers into the Church yet did not break the Peace of the Church and separate from those that were of a different Opinion he adds what likewise we may well say to our Quoters of St. Cyprian What say you to this Brother Vincentius You see that this Man this peaceful Bishop and most valiant Martyr was not more concern'd for any thing than least the bond of Vnity should be broken As the Authority of the Civil Power of which we have hitherto spoken is agreeable to Principles and Reason so likewise is it to the Practice and Sentiments of the antient Church To make this appear and to put an End if it be possible to this Controversy I shall present you when occasion is given with A History of that Authority viz. of the Civil Power over Ecclesiastical Persons as well in Depriving as in otherwise punishing throughout all ages more especially that of the first Christian Emperour I shall treat concerning that Matter with all the Fairness and Impartiality that becomes a faithful Historian and a real Lover of Truth concealing nothing that may seem to make for the Cause of our Adversaries Yet this I shall demonstrat that tho in the time of Constantius some persecuted Bishops were pleas'd to deny that the Emperour had any Autority at all over Bishops yet the Emperour Constantine himself so great a Lover and Honorer of Bishops as he was and likewise the succeeding Orthodox Emperours did oftentimes Judge and Deprive Bishops by their own bare Authority That the Church in the time of that Emperour as well as in after Ages submitted to and acknowleg'd that Authority That those Ecclesiastical Canons which ordain that Bishops even for Political Crimes are to be depriv'd onely by Bishops did never oblige any Secular Government but as they were allow'd off and so made Laws by that Government I could willingly give you a Forecast of a few illustrious Examples of Bishops depriv'd by the Emperour 's sole Authority and the Church's owning and acknowledging that Authority but I find I have already exceeded what first I design'd on this Subject and have done like a great many others who designing onely a Lodge have been in danger of building 'em a Seat I shall now proceed to the second general Proposition which our Adversaries are desir'd to make out which is this 2. That it is agreeable to the Practice of the Ancient Christians for a Bishop unjustly depos'd whether by the Emperour or by Bishops to withdraw himself from the Communion of his Successor tho' his Successor were not a Heretick Let this be their Proposition If they prove not that they prove nothing And the contrary is plainly demonstrated in our Treatise There are Two things you tell me besides the Canons above spoken off which our Adversaries are wont to allege in Answer to that Treatise They First endeavour to weaken the Authority of it and Secondly they pretend that the Examples which it produces are all of Bishops Synodically depriv'd and therefore not to our Purpose In answer to this second Exception I shall undertake to demonstrat these Two things 1. That the Ancients had no greater regard to an unjust Synodical Deprivation than they had to an unjust Imperial Deprivation 2. That several of those Bishops that are mention'd in our Treatise were not Depriv'd Synodically or by Bishops but by the Emperour 's sole Power and Authority Neither did they resign their Bishopricks but were violently turn'd out As for the Objections of our Adversaries against the Authority of our Treatise tho' I know not of any Treatise of that age and nature that deserves to be more esteem'd yet to wave all impertinent Disputes and to shew that what we assert is not grounded on that onely Bottom we will fairly make 'em this Offer We will lay aside if they please the Authority of that Treatise and enter the Lists with new Weapons This is the Prâ—position we shall take upon us to demonstrat That its contrary to the general Practice of the ancient Bishops to recede upon their being unjustly Depriv'd whether by the Emperour onely or by a Synod from the Communion of an Orthodox Successor I say the general Practice That 's enough for us to demonstrat For what if our Adversaries can produce us one or two Exceptions How will that excuse Bishops who have
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 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 which stands as it were for an Index as 't is 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 't is 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 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 account of such a Separation that they shall be honour'd as becomes true Believers For in such a case they do not condemn true Bishops but false Ones and they do not break the Vnity of the Church by a Schism but endeavour to deliver the Church from Schisms and Divisions Here ends the Collection of Canons That which follows immediatly in the MS. is altogether forreign both to them and the Treatise a Fragment of a Story concerning Artaxares and Chosroes of Persia. And now Sir you have read all the so much celebrated Canons which have rais'd so great Expectation and been made the common Defence of those that have been prest with the Authority of the Oxford Antiquity When you light on any of the Adversaries of the Oxford Antiquity pray shew 'em freely to them and desire them to make their best of 'em Much good may they do ' em If you meet with any of 'em so very Iudicious as to lay any Stress on the Mention that is made in these Three last Canons of a Synodical Deprivation pray desire them to be so just to you as to give you a Reason Let 'em give you a Proof that those Canons are a Part of the Treatise Let 'em shew how it makes for their Cause that in them there is mention made of a Synodical Deprivation how it proves that the Author of our Treatise is onely to be understood of a Synodical Deprivation Desire 'em but to open their Eyes and then they will plainly see that the whole Design of those Canons is onely against a Separation from our Bishops and the throwing off Canonical Obedience upon our own private Judgments and Pretences that the Vices or Crimes of a Bishop ought not to be made an Occasion of a Separation unless he be legally and fully condemn'd and depriv'd This is still the Doctrine of our Church and what we in England call Legal the Greeks when they spoke with relation to Bishops call'd a Synodical Deprivation 'cause the ordinary way of Depriving Bishops amongst them was by the Metropolitan and the rest of the Bishops of the Province who by the Consent of the Emperour were constituted the ordinary Judges of the Causes of Bishops I shall here add that it is easy for any Man of Judgment to observe That therefore the Canons which we have above produc'd were by some Body tackt to our Treatise in the MS. because of some kind of Relation which they seem to have to the General or Material Subject of the Treatise viz. Schism and Bishops tho they have not any Pertinency or Relation to the Formal or Particular Subject of it The adhering to an Orthodox Bishop in possession tho the former Bishop was unjustly turn'd out We know that most of those MS. Volumes which now our Libraries afford us were nothing else but so many Volumes as it were of Common Places in which Men of Learning and Study heapt together such Things as seem'd to them something akin And hence it is that in most Theological MSS. or at least in very many you meet with Canons of Councils disperst up and down according to the Subject of the Treatise foregoing Hence likewise many Fragments of the Fathers subjoin'd to Discourses of Divinity and others out of the Historians subjoin'd to Historical Treatises and the like A Thousand Instances of this may be easily produc'd if need were but I shall not spend Pains and Paper in what will easily be granted by all that are acquainted with MSS. I must not here omit that besides the Copy of our Treatise which we ow to the Baroccian Volume there is at this time extant another in France It is mention'd by the famous Cotelerius in his Notes upon the Third Volume of his Monumenta Ecclesiae Graecae He quotes it under the Title of a Treatise Concerning the famous Schism which was rais'd upon the account of Josephus the Presbyter and he says he intended to publish it That that which he mentions is the same with our Treatise appears by a certain Quotation of one of the Epistles of Methodius out of the Second Book of Nico which is produc'd by Cotelerius out of it and is in the very same words in our Treatise Since I publisht the Treatise I receiv'd this Observation from the Famous and Learned Mr. Dodwel Now if any one is so very unwilling to be convinc'd as not to be satisfied with what we have hitherto said and he thinks it worth his Curiosity he would do very well to desire an account of this Copy from some Body at Paris It is I suppose to be found in the King's Library there tho Cotelerius makes no mention where he had it Five Hundred to One but a Month or Six Weeks hence we may have a Report spread abroad that Advice has been sent from Paris that the aforesaid Canons are found in the MS. there in the self same manner as at Oxford A spurious Letter as from some considerable Man the Librarian himself or some other will do very well for that purpose This would be but a very dull Imposture since the Canons make nothing to the Purpose of the Treatise However I shall here let you know that it often happens that Two distinct MS. Copies of a Treatise have the same things subjoin'd at the end of the Treatise And the Reason is plain viz Because they were either transcrib'd from one another or are both descended from the same I know This is very Dry Food for a Person of so delicate and nice a Digestion as you are But however I shall give you one Instance We have here in Oxford amongst the Baroccian MSS. a Copy of Anastasius Sinaita Nicaenus some men miscall him his Quaestiones Theologicae at the End of which there are added many Fragments of several Authors which by the manner of Writing you would take to be part of the Work Another ancient Copy of the same Work is extant in the aforesaid Library at Paris in which the same Fragments are exactly found as I know by a particular account of that Volume which I have met with And yet it is certain that the Fragments we speak off are not part of the Work of Anastasius but annex'd to it by some ancient Librarian Concerning the Schism which was rais'd upon the account of Iosephus the Presbyter of which there is mention in the Paris Copy as the occasion of our Treatises being written I shall tell you something by and by Before I utterly dismiss this Cause I shall begg your leave to observe that the Council call'd First and Second to which the Three last of the Canons above translated do belong was a Council call'd under Photius the Patriarch of Constantinople in which the said Photius tho made a Patriarch by the Emperour when Ignatius the Patriarch was unjustly depos'd by the Emperour 's bare Authority was receiv'd and own'd as rightful Patriarch and that whilst Ignatius was living And 't is further observable
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 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 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 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 in his Synodical 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 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