<!DOCTYPE ETS PUBLIC "-//UMDLPS//DTD EEBOPROOF 2.0//EN">
<ETS>
<TEMPHEAD>
<REVDESCR>
<CHANGE>
<DATE>2014-07-23</DATE>
<RESPSTMT>
<NAME>Lauren Proux</NAME>
<RESP>MURP</RESP>
</RESPSTMT>
<ITEM>Checklist: x Add TEMPHEAD, change DATE, validate x Add DIV TYPEs, validate x Review structure, use BODY or rarely GROUP x Check PB placement and completeness, ensure sequence of N="" x Proof title page(s) x Check HEAD TRAILER ARGUMENT EPIGRAPH OPENER CLOSER SIGNED SALUTE BYLINE x Check ^, oe, abq (Esq;), italic I / J, _Initals, &amp;c. x Check # @ -- UNCLEAR LB FIGURE x Check q; startq endq Q&#62;
- Correct illegibles from proofsheet x Check illegible page, para, line, span, word, dollar signs Final validate Corrected [ ] illegible groups out of [ ]. Converted [ ] illegible groups to GAP DESC="illegible". DONE</ITEM>
</CHANGE>
</REVDESCR>
</TEMPHEAD>
<EEBO>
<IDG S="marc" R="UM" ID="B24195">
<STC T="W">H2098A</STC>
<BIBNO T="oclc">[ocm]12578937</BIBNO>
<VID>200314</VID>
</IDG>
<TEXT LANG="eng">
<FRONT>
<DIV1 TYPE="title page">
<PB REF="1">
<PB REF="1">
<P>Hi&s;torical Collections CONCERNING CHURCH AFFAIRS: In which it is &s;hew'd, From the Ancient Church HISTORIANS, FA|THERS, and other Eccle&s;ia&s;tical WRITERS, THAT THE Right to di&s;po&s;e of BISHOPS, purely in relation to their Spiritual Charges, in their re&s;pective Di&s;tricts, was believed to be &s;ubjected in the Clergy alone, as a &s;eparate independent Body from the Lay Power, du|ring the Reigns of <HI>Con&s;tantine</HI> and <HI>Con&s;tantius,</HI> the two fir&s;t Chri&s;tian Emperors: And that it was the Judg|ment of the Catholick Chri&s;tians, in tho&s;e days, if the Secular Magi&s;trate, or any <HI>irre&s;i&s;tible Party</HI> did a&s;&s;ume the &s;ame Right, upon any con&s;ideration whatever, that they were not to be recem'd nor obey'd in the exe|cution of it.</P>
<P>To which are added, Some occa&s;ional Ob&s;ervations upon Dr. <HI>Hody</HI>'s Book, called, <HI>The Ca&s;e of the Sees vacant, by an unju&s;t and uncano|nical Deprivation, &s;tated.</HI></P>
<Q><P>Ju&s;&s;os a te Epi&s;copos non e&s;&s;e quos condemnare nullus audebat. <BIBL>B. Hilarius, lib. con|tra Con&s;tantium, pag. 201. Ed. Ba&s;il.</BIBL></P>
<P>Ex eo intra no<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> tantum communio dominica continetur, ex quo his perturbationibus vex|ari eccle&s;ia caepta e&s;t, ut exulent epi&s;copi, demutentur Sacerdotes, plebs terreatur, fides fericle<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">etur, humano arbitrio ac Pote&s;tate doctrinae Dominicae decreta &s;tatuantur.</P></Q>
<P>By a Presbyter of the Church of <HI>England.</HI></P>
<P><HI>LONDON,</HI> Printed in the Year, 1696.</P>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 TYPE="preface">
<PB REF="2" MS="y">
<PB REF="2">
<HEAD>THE PREFACE.</HEAD>
<P>IT is now &s;omewhat above half an year &s;ince the following Papers were fini&s;hed; and perhaps they may never come abroad, but at the di&s;cretion of our Adver&s;aries, though they have now, well nigh gone through the Pre&s;s: For, why may we not &s;u&s;pect, that they will be &s;eized as well as the learned <HI>Vindicator</HI>'s an&s;wer was t'other day, tho' Doctor <HI>Hody</HI> had dar'd him to make a Reply, and promi&s;ed him the liberty of the Pre&s;s, in an unhand&s;ome Letter which he &s;ent him about <HI>Augu&s;t</HI> la&s;t, and it was the only &s;troke in it that &s;avour'd of decency and good manners: I am apt to think that &s;o great rudene&s;s has not been offer'd to &s;o learned a Man before: and if the Doctor does not make amends to his Reputation, by finding &s;ome ways that the Sheets may be re&s;tor'd, or by publickly declaring that it is not in his power to have it done, he mu&s;t, his be&s;t friends being judges, leave it in a very low and forlorn condition. But tho' our <HI>Vindicator</HI> had &s;uch ill &s;ucce&s;s, providence &s;o far favour'd us, that when we were putting
<PB REF="3"> our Sheets into the Printer's hands, there comes out a Book, which is, entituled, <HI>The Bi&s;hop of</HI> Sarum<HI>'s Vindication: or, Reflections upon a Pamphlet, entituled, Some Di&s;cour&s;es upon Doctor</HI> Burnet <HI>and Doctor</HI> Tillot&s;on, <HI>occa&s;ion'd by the late Fune|ral Sermon of the former upon the latter, by the Right Reverend Father in God, <HI>Gilbert</HI> Lord Bi&s;hop of</HI> Sarum.</P>
<P><NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>P.</HI> 52.</NOTE>In this Book he tells us, <HI>that Dr.</HI> Hody <HI>has fully ended the Argument he had begun from the Practi&s;e of the Church, and that in &s;o convincing a manner, that matters of fact &s;eem'd not to be capable of a clearer proof; and though we pre|tended other rea&s;ons, and make an excu&s;e for not an&s;wering him, the true rea&s;on why the Book</HI> [of the Ca&s;e of the Sees vacant] <HI>is not an&s;wer'd, is, becau&s;e it cannot be an&s;wer'd; men may wrangle eternally in Points of Speculation, but matters of fact are &s;evere things, and do not ad|mit of that &s;ophi&s;try.</HI></P>
<P>After this he adds, <HI>that the Practice of the Church is evidently made out to have been this; that &s;ince the Church cannot be kept in order with|out Governors, when Princes turn out Bi&s;hops, tho' upon groundle&s;s and untrue &s;ugge&s;tions, but without any de&s;ign to corrupt and alter the Faith, in &s;uch a ca&s;e, the Church is rather to bear a par|ticular injury then to break with the Prince, to forfeit his protection, or to venture on his di&s;|plea&s;ure,
<PB REF="3"> even in protecting an innocent and in|jur'd Bi&s;hop. Sacred Orders are indeed deriv'd according to the Rules of the Go&s;pel: but the allotment of this or that Bi&s;hop, to this or that See, are things of a mixed nature, in which the Civil as well as the Eccle&s;ia&s;tical authority have their &s;hare; both are under the Rules of Di&s;cre|tion and Prudence: and the Protection of the Magi&s;trate is of that con&s;equence to the whole, and to the advance of Religion it &s;elf, as well as to the quiet and &s;afety of all the Members of that Body, that it is certainly better to bear, even with a particular inju&s;tice, then, by oppo&s;ing it, to venture on a Concu&s;&s;ion of the whole Frame.</HI> He goes on, and makes us two challenges; the fir&s;t is in the&s;e words;</P>
<P><HI>We challenge them to &s;hew us any one In|&s;tance,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>P.</HI> 146, 147.</NOTE> <HI>where after a Revolution of the State hap|pened, that was generally receiv'd and &s;ettled, the Bi&s;hops and Pa&s;tors of the Church refu&s;ed to ac|knowledge the pre&s;ent Civil Government, and to act in their &s;tation under it; and more particu|larly, where any Revolution happened, which re&s;cued and &s;ettled the true Religion, that was not receiv'd with general joy and gratitude, even though the methods of it, and &s;teps of it, were liable to ju&s;t and great exceptions: we are &s;ure they cannot &s;hew any in&s;tance that looks like a precedent to their Proceedings; but that the
<PB REF="4"> whole cour&s;e of Hi&s;tory is one continued Prece|dent in our favour.</HI></P>
<P>The &s;econd is in the&s;e words; <HI>we challenge them to &s;hew us where ever a Schi&s;m was formed up|on the Lay Deprivation of a Bi&s;hop, even when the grounds that it proceeded on were vi&s;ibly un|ju&s;t, if the Faith of the Church was not pretended to be concern'd in the matter; more particularly we challenge them to &s;hew us an in&s;tance, where the Bi&s;hop or Clergy of a Church adher'd to a Metropolitan or a Bi&s;hop, &s;o turn'd out, or made a Schi&s;m upon his account, when he did not by any publick act or in&s;trument a&s;&s;ert his own Right, and challenge the Obedience of tho&s;e who were &s;ubordinate to him.</HI></P>
<P><NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>P.</HI> 1, 8.</NOTE>He &s;ays farther: <HI>That our leaving the general Argument from the con&s;tant uninterrupted Pra|ctice of the Church, and betaking our &s;elves to the methods of &s;lander and defamation, is &s;uch an evident vindication of a bad cau&s;e, and of a wor&s;e managery, that it is not po&s;&s;ible but that the generality of indifferent Men will &s;oon di&s;cern how weak our Rea&s;ons, and &s;trong our Pa&s;&s;ions are: that we have in all our Writings built too much upon the Practice of the Church, to be able with any &s;hame to reject this Argument, and to &s;ay, that we ought to be governed by Rules and not by Examples.</HI></P>
<P>In which bold challenges, and mo&s;t fal&s;e groundle&s;s a&s;|&s;ertions,
<PB REF="4"> there are many things unskillfully and untheologi|cally laid down and expre&s;&s;ed, and call for a ca&s;tigation: in&s;omuch, that if this <HI>Vindicator</HI> had not, t'other day, autoritatively demanded a Recantation from Mr. <HI>Altham</HI> upon his Licen&s;ing the learned Mr. <HI>Hill</HI>'s Book, which he wrote again&s;t him on Ju&s;t Principles, and with &s;ound Rea&s;onings, this his performance is alone a convin|cing indication that he writes and acts not with the skill of a Divine, but upon raw and indige&s;ted Thoughts: or, rather, in the &s;trength of his Peerage, and under the pro|tection of a <HI>Writ</HI> called <HI>Scandalum Magnatum.</HI> I'll divert my &s;elf and my Reader a little, in taking notice of two or three of his ra&s;h productions.</P>
<P N="1"><HI>1.</HI> He tells us, that <HI>the Church cannot be kept in order without Governors,</HI> i. e. without the Secu|lar Power. Pray, how then was &s;he governed, and all things done decently and in order by her own Charter and Officers, in St. <HI>Paul</HI>'s time, and from thence to <HI>Con|&s;tantine</HI> the Great, during which &s;pace, the Empire was Heathen, and its Secular Arm gave her little or no pro|tection, but with <HI>Gallio,</HI> its Deputy in the <HI>Acts,</HI> cared for none of the&s;e things? Can we think that our Saviour founded and erected a Corporation with its own Officers and their Subordinates, through the merits and vertue of his Cro&s;s, to &s;ub&s;i&s;t under it in the time of Per&s;ecution, and did not furni&s;h it with ju&s;t means and abilities to pre&s;erve it &s;elf, when the Secular Power frown'd, even rag'd, upon it, whether it was then Chri&s;tian or Hea|then?</P>
<P N="2"><PB REF="5"><HI>2.</HI> What does he mean when he &s;ays, that if the Prince offers violence to the Bi&s;hop, and <HI>turns him out,</HI> in &s;uch a ca&s;e the Church is to &s;ubmit <HI>rather then to break with the Prince, and forfeit his</HI> Protection? The Church of God &s;tands and acts by vertue of her Charter from Chri&s;t: She is thankfull to the Prince for the worldly immunities and protections with which he ve&s;ts her; but if &s;he be depriv'd of the&s;e, either in part, or in the whole, her Charter remains the &s;ame, and retains its original force and obligation; and &s;he &s;ub&s;i&s;ts neverthe|le&s;s, by the promi&s;e and a&s;&s;i&s;tance of her Saviour, as &s;he did before any &s;ecular donation was be&s;tow'd upon her: her Revenues may not be &s;o large upon it, but her con&s;titution and e&s;&s;ential rights, her, even vigor, are not le&s;&s;ened: &s;he neither <HI>breaks</HI> with the Prince by departing from him, much le&s;s by oppo&s;ing him, nor <HI>forfeits,</HI> tho' &s;he lo&s;es tho&s;e favours which he had be&s;towed upon her; but &s;till acts in the &s;ame Subordination as to Chri&s;t her head in Spirituals, and to the Prince her head in Tem|porals: neither did &s;he receive one &s;ecular donation, but on condition that her Corporation, and the Liberties with which Chri&s;t vested it, &s;hould receive no abatement, much le&s;s a plenary and final abrogation. And it may be far|ther ob&s;erved, that as this <HI>Vindicator</HI> in a few lines be|fore, makes the Churches &s;ub&s;i&s;tence, even ber <HI>frame</HI> and being, to depend on the Princes favour, the <HI>Concu&s;&s;ion</HI> of which he mightily fears, and wou'd have every body el&s;e do &s;o, upon his di&s;plea&s;ure, &s;o he again &s;eems, in the &s;ame Paragraph, to ve&s;t the Church with an intrin|&s;ick
<PB REF="5"> right of Independency and Non-&s;ubordination to him, and to &s;tand upon and execute it, if it be for her advan|tage. For, what el&s;e can he mean, when, having af|firm'd the <HI>Magi&s;trates Prorection of the Bi&s;hops</HI> to be nece&s;&s;ary, he yet owns the Church to have a right to <HI>protect</HI> an injured innocent Bi&s;hop, and to <HI>allot a Bi&s;hop to this or that See,</HI> as well as the Prince, at her own <HI>di&s;cretion and prudence?</HI> And he that will not take this for a &s;elf-contradiction, mu&s;t fir&s;t make it to appear that the&s;e two propo&s;itions are competible, <HI>the Church is unable to protect her &s;elf, and to &s;ub&s;i&s;t without the Magi&s;trate: the Church hath a Power to protect her &s;elf, and to &s;ub&s;i&s;t with|out the Magi&s;trate.</HI> And, which is wor&s;t of all, he allows the&s;e Rights, which he, with &s;o much difficulty, a&s;&s;erts to be in the Church, to be &s;acrificed to the Princes <HI>di&s;plea&s;ure:</HI> and the <HI>innocent</HI> and <HI>injur'd Bi&s;hop</HI> is no more <HI>to be protected,</HI> but to be given up, in the time of per&s;ecution.</P>
<P N="3"><HI>3.</HI> He farther &s;hews his loo&s;e and indige&s;ted Thoughts, when he &s;ays; that, <HI>the allotment of a Bi&s;hop to this or that See is of a mixed nature, in which the Civil, as well as the Eccle&s;ia&s;tical Authority have their &s;hare; both are under di&s;cretion and pru|dence.</HI> If by <HI>allotment</HI> he means <HI>nomination,</HI> or (which was the &s;ame in the Ancient Church) <HI>Election,</HI> his di&s;tribution is imperfect; for, the Prince, and Bi&s;hop, and People had their &s;hare in it, during &s;ome time of the Ancient Church, in which the Prince was Chri&s;tian, and &s;ometimes one of them, &s;ometimes the other, and &s;ome|times
<PB REF="6"> all of them joyntly, made this <HI>allotment:</HI> and &s;ince he is (at lea&s;t pretends to be) &s;o &s;trenu|ous a retreiver of the Practice of the Ancient Church, and wou'd to be apprehended to make it his rule, he may not be conceived to take it in this &s;en&s;e, becau&s;e he &s;eems to allow the People no <HI>&s;hare</HI> in it: I will add, (which in the upca&s;t will mo&s;tly prevail with him) &s;ince the Laws of our Land have limited the nomination of a Bi&s;hop <HI>to this or that See</HI> to the Prince, and do not allow the Bi&s;hop or People to have any thing to do with it. Again, if by <HI>Allotment</HI> he means <HI>Election,</HI> as di&s;tinct from <HI>nomination,</HI> as our latter Eccle&s;ia&s;ticks u&s;e it; thus the &s;ame Muncipal Law of our Land places it in the Church and People, but I do not find that the Princes has meddled with it, or pretended to a &s;hare in it. Or, if by <HI>Allotment</HI> he means, the actual ve&s;ting of a Bi&s;hop with his Spiritual Right <HI>in this or that di&s;trict,</HI> or the enthroning him upon his <HI>Nomination</HI> and <HI>Election,</HI> the Church Officers only perform this, and the Practice, not only of our own Church, but of the whole Church of God ju&s;tifies them in it; neither the Prince or People have been concern'd in it, either by the Laws of our Land, or of the Church. This <HI>Vindicator</HI> therefore ought to have been more carefull in his expre&s;&s;ion, &s;ince, let him take <HI>Allotment,</HI> in which of the forementioned Sen&s;es he thinks fit, he is &s;hort, or quite mi&s;taken. But if he confines it to <HI>Nomination,</HI> as oppo&s;ed to <HI>Election</HI> and <HI>Enthroni|zation,</HI> he evidently brings him&s;elf into a <HI>Premunire;</HI> becau&s;e he dimini&s;hes from the King's Prerogative, making
<PB REF="6"> it a <HI>mixed action,</HI> and a&s;&s;erting the Eccle&s;ia&s;tical Authority to have a &s;hare with him in the <HI>Nomination</HI> of a Bi&s;hop, as it &s;hall be directed by the <HI>Rules of Di&s;|cretion and Prudence.</HI></P>
<P>But I forbear to in&s;i&s;t any longer here, lea&s;t I &s;hould outrun the bounds which I have de&s;ign'd for this <HI>Preface;</HI> neither need I take any advantage from the&s;e and the like out-works, &s;ince the following <HI>Collections,</HI> which con|tain the Practice of the Church and Empire in the Reigns of <HI>Con&s;tantine</HI> and <HI>Con&s;tantius,</HI> and <HI>Valens</HI> and <HI>Theodo&s;ius</HI> in part, do abundantly &s;hew in <HI>&s;o convin|cing a manner, that matters of fact &s;eem not to be capable of a clearer proof,</HI> that this <HI>Vindicators</HI> main Cau&s;e is founded on the Sand, and obtruded on Mankind without any precedent in Church Hi&s;tory, &s;o far as tho&s;e reigns do reach, or foundation in things: and that the Empire, then di&s;own'd and remov'd tho&s;e Rights, in placing a Bi&s;hop in his Spiritual Charge within his di&s;trict, which he pretends it had; and the Church re|mon&s;trated upon it, when <HI>Con&s;tantius</HI> once attempted it. So that <HI>the whole cour&s;e of Hi&s;tory,</HI> within the fore|mentioned interval of time, <HI>is one continued Precedent,</HI> not in his but in our <HI>favour,</HI> and it is thence manife&s;t, that as we have not <HI>left the general Argument from the con&s;tant uninterrupted Practice of the Church,</HI> (in the true Eccle&s;ia&s;tical Sen&s;e, which concludes the Tra|dition to be constant and uninterrupted, which is con|tinued for &s;ome time, perhaps, by but a few Catholick hands, when a more numerous company of Hereticks and
<PB REF="7"> Schi&s;maticks tra&s;h and interlope it) as this <HI>Vindicator</HI> &s;landers and defames us; much le&s;s that <HI>we betake our &s;elves to the methods of &s;lander and defamation in|&s;tead of it,</HI> &s;o it is no le&s;s plain that we had no need to do it. The meek, and pious, and mo&s;t learned <HI>Vindicator of the deprived Sees,</HI> yet unan&s;wer'd, is, alone, a ju&s;t confutation of it. But the judicious Reader will find the Truths which I &s;hall &s;et down by and by, to be as plain and legible in the following <HI>Collections,</HI> as the Sun is vi&s;ible at noon, in a clear day: each of which are full in the Teeth of the Bi&s;hop of <HI>Sarum</HI>'s <HI>Vindicator,</HI> and in contradiction to that which he hath, as above recited out of his own <HI>Vindication,</HI> with &s;o much a&s;&s;urance, and contempt<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">on us, a&s;&s;erted. And though he cannot, perhaps, or will not, yet indifferent Readers will &s;ee, that there might be other rea&s;ons why we have not an&s;wer'd Doctor <HI>Hody,</HI> &s;o &s;oon as he thinks we ought to have done, be&s;ides tho&s;e which he gives, who makes them our ignorance and inability, and <HI>becau&s;e he cannot be an&s;wer'd,</HI> &s;ince he will find, that we had ju&s;t grounds to contemn him: he needed not, indeed, have been an&s;wer'd now, were it not to rectifie and &s;et in their true light tho&s;e truths and matters of fact, which he hath ignorantly and injudiciou&s;ly involv'd and ob&s;cur'd, or pa&s;&s;ed over, or, which is wor&s;e, wilfully conceal'd. The truths are the&s;e that follow; mo&s;t evi|dently prov'd to be &s;uch, upon the Principles, and from the Practice of the Church, in the Reigns of the two fir&s;t Chri&s;tian Emperors: the &s;ame, in part, being e|qually manife&s;ted from the &s;ucceeding Reigns of <HI>Valens</HI> and <HI>Theodo&s;ius.</HI> As.</P>
<PB REF="7">
<P>That if the Prince &s;hould turn out Bi&s;hops, and pretend to di&s;charge their People of their Obedience to them, upon what &s;ugge&s;tions &s;oever, whether they be true or fal&s;e, but maintain the Faith unalter'd and un&s;potted, the Prin|ciples of that Age (and its Practice was accordingly, upon each occa&s;ion) directed the Church to adhere to the right|ful and innocent Bi&s;hops &s;o deprived, contrary to her Laws, and by an incompetent Power, and to chu&s;e rather to ven|ture the Prince's di&s;plea&s;ure, and to lo&s;e his Protection, and to depend upon her Charter given her by Chri&s;t, for her pre&s;ervation, then to recognize and &s;ubmit to &s;uch a Deprivation.</P>
<P>That as not Sacred Orders, &s;o neither was the Ve&s;t|ment of a Bi&s;hop in his Spiritual Right and Charge <HI>in this or that See,</HI> then, lookt upon to be a thing of a <HI>mixed nature,</HI> in which <HI>the Civil as well as the Eccle&s;ia&s;tical Authority have their &s;hare,</HI> but, as the former, &s;o the latter was to be performed by the Eccle&s;ia&s;tical Autho|rity only.</P>
<P>That the Empire it &s;elf then <HI>di&s;own'd</HI> all right, by which it might be enabled to derive a Bi&s;hop's Spiritual Charge on him, or to take it from him, and <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">elea&s;e his People of their Obedience to him: And, not only &s;o, but, the Empire accounted &s;uch an attempt to be profane, im|pious, un&s;criptural, and an u&s;urpation; and declar'd the Right of doing it to belong to the Bi&s;hop only.</P>
<P>That there was no Revolution in the Civil Govern|ment during this interval of Time, and the Query is im|pertinent, what was then the Churches Practice under a
<PB REF="8"> Revolution? But &s;ince the then Bi&s;hops refu&s;ed to own and &s;ubmit to the Emperor's Power in placing and di&s;placing Bi&s;hops, though the Emperor was &s;ettled there by the Law of the Empire, and not upon a forcible removal of his Pre|dece&s;&s;or, or a Revolution; &s;ince the&s;e Bi&s;hops then declar'd their unque&s;tionably lawful Governor a Per&s;ecutor, the wor&s;t of Per&s;ecutors; Antichri&s;t and Sacrilegious, upon his doing &s;uch a thing; we may &s;afely believe that they would not have recogniz'd and &s;ubmitted to the &s;ame Po&s;|&s;e&s;&s;ion or Deprivation, if it had been made by a Governor placed over them upon a Revolution, when his Title was que&s;tionable, but that they wou'd have retain'd tho&s;e ejected Bi&s;hops in the Colledge, and made good their &s;tations, tho' them&s;elves were deprived by him for it, and he had placed a <HI>Second</HI> upon them. The Bi&s;hops of the Church are to keep their stations, and, &s;o far as their per&s;onal liberty ena|bles them, to di&s;charge their Functions under the pre&s;ent Government, be it ju&s;t or unju&s;t. Chri&s;t's Charter requires and enables them to do it: no que&s;tion can be made con|cerning it. But the Query is, if the pre&s;ent Government, be it what it will, (it is all one, in this regard, whether it be ju&s;t or unju&s;t) impo&s;es on them unlawful terms, and, on their non-compliance with the&s;e terms di&s;enables them to di&s;charge their Functions, in publick or altogether; whether they are not bound to acquie&s;ce under that di&s;ability, rather then take it off, and recover their liberty, by complying with tho&s;e unlawful terms? But, e&s;pecially, when the Charter of Chri&s;t it &s;elf, and that Unity which is e&s;&s;ential to it, are in danger to be deliver'd into the hands of the Civil Power, and to be violated by it.</P>
<PB REF="8">
<P>That the Catholick Bi&s;hops and Pa&s;tors of the Church always &s;eparated (the <HI>Vindicator</HI> of the Bi&s;hop of <HI>Sarum</HI> may, in his loo&s;e and unthinking way of &s;peaking, when he &s;tates ca&s;es, call it making a Schi&s;m) I &s;ay, they always &s;eparated from tho&s;e Bi&s;hops that were brought into their Colledge upon a Deprivation, though the Empire had an hand in it, and, at the lea&s;t, confirm'd it: and the Catholick Presbyters and Believers did &s;o likewi&s;e, when the &s;ame Bi&s;hops were brought into their re&s;pective Di&s;tricts upon the &s;ame voidance, whether the Faith of the Church was pretended by them to be concern'd in it, or not: and where the Faith was own'd to be really concern'd, the Schi&s;|matical intru&s;t of a Bi&s;hop (which was thought to be made when a Lay Hand, though it was a Royal Hand, did it) was believ'd as ju&s;t a ground for their &s;eparation, and to contract as deep a guilt, if he was receiv'd and &s;ub|mitted to, as the heretical impo&s;ing a fal&s;e Article of Faith, if it was embraced and &s;ub&s;crib'd to.</P>
<P>That the then Bi&s;hops adher'd to a Metropolitan, or another Bi&s;hop, as continuing true Members of their Col|ledge, or Epi&s;copal Fraternity, and the Clergy and Belie|vers clo&s;ed with and adher'd to them, as their lawful heads, in their re&s;pective Di&s;tricts, when they were removed from them by a Lay Power that was <HI>irre&s;i&s;tible;</HI> and, not only &s;o, but, when they were bani&s;h'd into a remote Land; and, &s;o far as we find in any Church Law which oblig'd them to it, or matter of fact to pre&s;ident them in it, this they did, though the&s;e their Bi&s;hops had not (&s;ometimes their hard circum&s;tances might be &s;uch that they could not)
<PB REF="9"> <HI>a&s;&s;erted their own Rights upon their leaving of them:</HI> nor did afterwards <HI>challenge the Obedience of tho&s;e that were Subordinate to them,</HI> i. e. &s;uch the Presbyters and Believers adhering to them, by <HI>any publick Epi&s;copal act, or in&s;trument.</HI></P>
<P>That though the then Catholick Clergy and Believers built the whole frame of their Proceedings in the&s;e Ca&s;es, as upon the Principles, &s;o, upon the Practice and Authority of the Church, they were not a&s;hamed to &s;ay, under &s;ome Emergencies, when Per&s;ecution was high, and Profe&s;&s;ors were thin, and to in&s;i&s;t upon it, that they were to be go|vern'd by <HI>Rules and not by Examples:</HI> and that the rule, not the numerou&s;ne&s;s of tho&s;e who &s;hrank from it in the time of di&s;tre&s;s, was their guid: and they compar'd their ca&s;e with tho&s;e of <HI>Daniel</HI> in the Lyons Den, and the three Children in the fiery Furnace, in re&s;pect of their fewne&s;s in number. And though this <HI>Vindicator</HI> wou'd have done it, none in tho&s;e days, or &s;ince, except &s;ome few of his complexion, have thought it to be a <HI>vindication of a bad cau&s;e, and of a wor&s;e managery,</HI> nor con|cluded <HI>their rea&s;ons to be weak,</HI> or <HI>their pa&s;&s;ions to be &s;trong</HI> by rea&s;on of it. Nor will, even, this <HI>Vin|dicator,</HI> when he is out of a Party, or any body el&s;e, that is unprejudiced, &s;ay, that examples, though they be never &s;o numerous, and otherwi&s;e great, have any force or obliga|tion, but (to &s;peak in his own words) <HI>when a Founda|tion is once laid, and a Cau&s;e is provided to be ju&s;t in it &s;elf:</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Pag. 112.</NOTE> <HI>then the &s;teps of providence that watch over it, will be ob&s;erv'd by all that are not athei&s;ti|cal and irreligious.</HI></P>
<PB REF="9">
<P>Now, all this, with a great deal more to the like effect, by which Doctor <HI>Hody</HI>'s whole Fabrick is totally over|thrown, being prov'd at large, as in the following <HI>Colle|ctions</HI> upon a &s;ure foundation of Principles, and from as good Authority, as to matters of fact, as any hath been in Chri&s;tendom, &s;ince the Apo&s;tolical Writings were penned; I hope we &s;hall be no more upbraided (tho' we may &s;till be contemned) for not an&s;wering the Doctor's Book of <HI>The Vindication of the Sees vacant,</HI> as that Book which <HI>could not be an&s;wer'd.</HI> Neither do I know why the&s;e Sheets may not al&s;o go for an an&s;wer to the <HI>Vindicator</HI>'s mighty <HI>challenge,</HI> in which, with a Spirit too near a kin to that of <HI>Goliah</HI> of <HI>Gath,</HI> and in the &s;ame <HI>Thra&s;oni|cal</HI> way that <HI>uncircumci&s;ed Phili&s;tine</HI> did, he bids de|fiance to the Armies of the living God, through the &s;ides of the little <HI>Remnant</HI> of the pre&s;ent di&s;tre&s;&s;ed Church of <HI>England,</HI> and I expect no hand&s;omer dealings from him hereafter, nor any other return at pre&s;ent then what he hath generally made, for &s;ome years pa&s;t, to other Wri|tings which gall'd him, but he dur&s;t not pretend to an&s;wer them. As that my Book is a <HI>Pamphlet, I have lo&s;t my Temper and other Principles with my Bene|fice: I am ignorant and malicious: let the Rea|der try his patience on my Book if he can: I may depend upon it, I &s;hall never be an&s;wer'd: that my Writings are a di&s;paragement to the &s;ide I write for:</HI> I am <HI>an underworkman; a Journey-man: a bold Scribler, without any &s;prinkling of Salt to give it a reli&s;h: I &s;hall be de&s;ir'd to give
<PB REF="10"> over writing: that I am a turbulent Libeller: a di&s;tracter of the Church: if they had a mind to make our body to appear ridiculous, they would only wi&s;h us to imply &s;uch a Writer to make Apo|logies for us: that my way of managing the mo&s;t horrid and unnatural Schi&s;m, which lies at our door, has made us both odious and contemptible: that my rea&s;ons are weak and my pa&s;&s;ions are &s;trong: that I &s;hew a keene&s;s of &s;pirit which can hurt no body but my &s;elf:</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">See Po&s;t&s;cript to the Vindication <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">f the Bi&s;hop of <HI>Sarum.</HI></NOTE> And, perhaps, I may be called a <HI>Knight of the Po&s;t,</HI> as one is; becau&s;e I have pub|li&s;h'd &s;ome Truths which this <HI>Vindicator</HI> and his friend Doctor <HI>Hody</HI> were ignorant of, and are as unable to bear as to di&s;prove. I had like to have forgotten, that <HI>a long Title</HI> is another of his Arguments, by which he enervates, in his enervating way, the Learned, Judicious, and mo&s;t Catholick Tract, entituled, <HI>The Charge of the Sociniani&s;m again&s;t Doctor</HI> Tillot&s;on<HI>'s con&s;i|dered,</HI> &amp;c. to which as I am equally liable; &s;o I expect my &s;hare of it: but a Brother of his has &s;ince convinc'd him that that Book has &s;omething in it, and forced a kind of ibid &s;upra recantation from him for his heady, ra&s;h contempt which he has ca&s;t upon it: though his friends <HI>Vindication</HI> leaves their <HI>Primate</HI> in the dirt, and does a little more than wa&s;h the <HI>Aethiopian Skin.</HI></P>
<P>Now, are not the&s;e trivial thread-bare Phra&s;es and Expre&s;&s;ions fine Arguments to u&s;e again&s;t &s;everal Treati&s;es concerning Schi&s;m, and other weighty Subjects, wrote with
<PB REF="10"> as much acutene&s;s, reading, &s;olid judgment, and weight of argument as any controver&s;ie has been &s;tated and argued &s;ince the Apo&s;tles days; the greate&s;t part of which have not yet been pretended to have been an&s;wer'd any other way? Which have been wrote, al&s;o, with as much temper and candor as any of the ancients Tracts have been: For the, even, Primitive Champions of our Faith and Di&s;cipline have &s;till u&s;ed a great deal of warmth, and never waved any ju&s;t opportunity of expo&s;ing and aggravating the &s;leights and tergiver&s;ations, even, immoralities, of their adver|&s;aries, in their own defences and ju&s;tifications. Though one would think, &s;ince this <HI>Vindicator</HI> has had, very late|ly, one of his Books burn'd by the common Hangman, by the Order of the <HI>Hou&s;e of Commons,</HI> and another ju&s;t|ly cha&s;ti&s;ed by the learned Mr. <HI>Hill,</HI> it might have coold him a little, and learnt him &s;ome tenderne&s;s for tho&s;e Au|thors, who write, po&s;&s;ibly, with a good meaning, but may not perform, in every little particular, &s;o dexterou&s;ly and advantageou&s;ly as &s;ome others do. It &s;eems, even, his lawn &s;leeves have not alter'd him, unle&s;s for the wor&s;e, and he has not attain'd, at lea&s;t in appearance, more wit or di&s;|cretion in his repre&s;entations of things and per&s;ons, &s;ince he put them on. But let him go on in his way for me; as I have no rea&s;on to regard his railery, neither do I fear his &s;trength of argument. And, &s;urely, having lo&s;t all I have to lo&s;e, I &s;hall not be frighted into a recantation, as Mr. <HI>Altham</HI> was. Be&s;ides, I am well u&s;&s;ur'd that the Authorities which I have produced, and the Temper which I have u&s;ed in my &s;tile and way of arguing are &s;uch, that the
<PB REF="11"> ingenuous Reader will not take offence, though he does di&s;|like the &s;ubject matter: and if his great acutene&s;s and di&s;|cerning judgment &s;hould di&s;cover &s;ome mi&s;takes and failures in the Narrative and Argument, of which I do not pre|tend to be wholly free, and I will thank him if he gives me notice of them: nor can I think that any one will receive the whole with the <HI>Vindicator</HI>'s Spirit, except him&s;elf, and &s;ome few more, if there &s;hould be any &s;uch, who make it their own concern, that Doctor <HI>Hody</HI> is here prov'd to be an ill Hi&s;torian, and a weak and fallacious rea&s;oner.</P>
<P>I de&s;ire it may be con&s;ider'd, that this whole perfor|mance is Hi&s;torical, as the Title &s;peaks it: and if the Doctrines and Practices, of which I give an account, be di&s;ta&s;tful to the Reader, I hope be will be &s;o candid and ju&s;t as to pa&s;s me by, and lay them at the doors of tho&s;e who delivered and practiced them: who are no other then the mo&s;t eminent Catholick Bi&s;hops, Confe&s;&s;ors and Champions for the Cau&s;e of Chri&s;t in the Reigns of <HI>Con&s;tantine</HI> the Great and <HI>Con&s;tantius</HI> his Son, with &s;ome others a lit|tle later in time, but not le&s;s eminent, who joyfully &s;uffered the lo&s;s of their goods, and &s;u&s;tain'd the bani&s;hment of their Per&s;ons into remote Countries, and were, moreover, ready to die in the atte&s;tation and defence of them, being Martyrs, though their blood was not pour'd out, (for <HI>Con&s;tantius</HI> made no Sanguinary Laws) in the &s;en&s;e of the ancient Church. And I doubt not but that they are &s;uch in the acceptance of Chri&s;t; nor in the lea&s;t que&s;tion but that they have, at this in&s;tant, a fir&s;t place in Heaven, and enjoy a nearer attendance on God there, agreeably to <HI>Tertul|lian</HI>'s
<PB REF="11"> repre&s;entation of them, if he was the Author of that <HI>Poem.</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">De ultimo judi|cio, cap. <HI>7.</HI></NOTE></P>
<Q>Excel&s;o&abque; throno cele&s;ti &s;ede coru&s;cat Martyribus &s;eptus.</Q>
<P>I'll conclude with the Apology which St. <HI>Hilary</HI> made in his Book <HI>de Synodis adver&s;us Arianos,</HI> upon his &s;et|ting forth the Councils which had been &s;ince the <HI>Nicene</HI> Council.</P>
<P><HI>In quibus &s;i quid vitio&s;um ine&s;&s;e intelligetur, nemo mihi vitium pote&s;t a&s;&s;ignare dictorum: in|ternuncius enim &s;um ip&s;e, non conditor. Si quid vero rectum at&abque; ex doctrinis Apo&s;tolicis depre|hendetur: nemo ambigit non interpretantis in eo e&s;&s;e gloriam, &s;ed autoris: ego tamen quae ge&s;ta &s;unt fideliter tran&s;mi&s;i: vos an Catholica, an he|retica &s;int, fidei ve&s;trae judicio comprobate.</HI></P>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 TYPE="table of contents">
<PB REF="12">
<HEAD>THE CONTENTS.</HEAD>
<DIV2 N="1" TYPE="chapter">
<HEAD>CHAP. I.</HEAD>
<DIV3 N="1" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. 1.</HEAD>
<LIST>
<ITEM>THE Author gives his Rea&s;ons why the&s;e <HI>Collections</HI> begin with the Chri&s;tian Empire, and is confin'd to the times of <HI>Con&s;tantine</HI> and <HI>Con&s;tantius.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>The Subject of them is comprized under two general heads. As,
<LIST>
<ITEM><HI>1.</HI> That during the Reigns of <HI>Con&s;tantine</HI> and <HI>Con&s;tan|tius,</HI> the forcible removal of a Bi&s;hop, by what ways and hands &s;oever it was effected, was not thought to make way for a Suc|ce&s;&s;or.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>2.</HI> That the Empires Right and Power was not then thought to be competent for the abdicating a Bi&s;hop, and di&s;&s;olving the Relation between him and his Subjects, and placing a Succe&s;&s;or in his room, and obliging the people to receive him. <HI>Page 1, 2, 3, 4.</HI></ITEM>
</LIST></ITEM>
</LIST>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="2" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. II.</HEAD>
<LIST>
<ITEM>THe forcible removal of a Bi&s;hop, by what ways or hands &s;oever, was not thought to make way for a Succe&s;&s;or, and this is prov'd,</ITEM>
<PB REF="12">
<ITEM>From the example of <HI>Athana&s;ius, Paulinus</HI> Bi&s;hop of <HI><GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1+ letters">+ers, Eu&s;ebius</HI> of <HI>Vercellis, Dioni&s;ius</HI> of <HI>Millane,</HI> and &s;e<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="right margin cropped or obscured" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1+ letters">+ral others.</ITEM>
<ITEM>If the Empire had placed Orthodox Bi&s;hops in the Chairs of tho&s;e whom it depo&s;ed, the Principles of tho&s;e times would not have permitted the Colledge, Clergy, and Believers to have receiv'd them. <HI>Pag. 5, 6, 7.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>For this we have the examples of <HI>Eu&s;tathius</HI> and <HI>Meletius,</HI> Bi&s;hops of <HI>Antioch.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>Chri&s;tians may lo&s;e Chri&s;t by running away from a true Bi|&s;hop to a fal&s;e Bi&s;hop, but never by adhering to their true Bi&s;hop, though he be in exile.</ITEM>
<ITEM>The <HI>Antiochian</HI> Chri&s;tians who adher'd to <HI>Meletius</HI> their Bi&s;hop, though he was then in exile, are a pre&s;ident for Chri|&s;tians therein. <HI>Pag. 8, 9, 10, 11.</HI></ITEM>
</LIST>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="3" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. III.</HEAD>
<LIST>
<ITEM>DOctor <HI>Hody</HI>'s Arguments are confuted, by which he en|deavours to prove from the examples of <HI>Eu&s;tathius</HI> and <HI>Meletius,</HI> that Orthodoxy alone will ju&s;tifie a Po&s;&s;e&s;&s;or, tho' Here&s;ie will not: and that, when <HI>Meletius</HI> rejected <HI>Paulinus,</HI> it was becau&s;e he was reputed an Heretick, or el&s;e for other warrantable rea&s;ons, which his Orthodoxy did not compen&s;ate for. <HI>P. 12.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Meletius's</HI> Title to <HI>Antioch,</HI> during <HI>Eu&s;tathius</HI>'s life, was not founded in <HI>Eu&s;tathius</HI>'s depo&s;ition which was made in the Synod of <HI>Gangre.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Eu&s;tathius</HI> was alive when <HI>Meletius</HI> was made Bi&s;hop of <HI>Antioch,</HI> &s;o that <HI>Meletius</HI>'s right to <HI>Antioch</HI> was not founded in <HI>Eu&s;tathius</HI>'s death.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Eu&s;tathius</HI>'s d<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">po&s;ition in the Synod of <HI>Antioch</HI> did not legitim<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">te <HI>Mel<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">tius</HI>'s Po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion of the <HI>Antiochian</HI> Chair. <HI>Pag. 13, 14, 15.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>Though we allow <HI>Eu&s;tathius</HI>'s Succe&s;&s;ors in the <HI>Antiochian</HI>
<PB REF="13"> Chair to have been <HI>Arians,</HI> and tho he di&s;own'd them for that rea&s;on, until <HI>Meletius,</HI> who was Orthodox, came to his Chair: Yet he had ju&s;t rea&s;on al&s;o to di&s;own them, be|cau&s;e they were Schi&s;maticks, and came into his Chair by his <HI>unju&s;t</HI> and <HI>uncanonical</HI> Deprivation. Doctor <HI>Hody</HI>'s ar|guing is wide when he concludes, that though their Po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion was not warrantable as they were <HI>Arians,</HI> it was warrantable as they were Schi&s;maticks. <HI>Pag. 16, 17, 18, 19, 20.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Meletius</HI>'s Orthodoxy and Po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion did not legitimate him in the See of <HI>Antioch,</HI> till <HI>Eu&s;tathius</HI> re&s;ign'd unto him. <HI>Pag. 21, 22, 23, 24.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Eu&s;tathius</HI>'s Re&s;ignation is a ju&s;t Pattern for all Chri&s;tian Bi&s;hops, upon the &s;ame, or like Emergencies. <HI>Pag. 33.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Meletius</HI> did not think <HI>Paulinus</HI>'s orthodoxy to legitimate <HI>Paulinus</HI> to the See at <HI>Antioch,</HI> of which he was the lawful Bi&s;hop, becau&s;e he was po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ed of it, while&s;t <HI>Meletius</HI> was in exile; but he received his people, at his return, and pre|&s;ided over them in divine Wor&s;hip, a part from <HI>Paulinus,</HI> as from <HI>Euzoius,</HI> the then <HI>Arian</HI> Bi&s;hop there.</ITEM>
<ITEM>A Bi&s;hop that is an heretical Po&s;&s;e&s;&s;or, and a Bi&s;hop that is a Schi&s;matical Po&s;&s;e&s;&s;or, are to be &s;hunn'd a like, and a Convention ought to be made in oppo&s;ition to both of them: tho' it be but in a corner.</ITEM>
<ITEM>It may be believ'd, as <HI>Baronius</HI> &s;ays, that the Bi&s;hop of <HI>Rome,</HI> and the Synod of <HI>Alexandria</HI> did receive <HI>Paulinus</HI> as the lawful Bi&s;hop of <HI>Antioch,</HI> without any prejudice to that which we have ju&s;t now &s;aid: &s;ince we have rea&s;on to believe that they did not then know that <HI>Meletius</HI> was alive. <HI>Pag. 33, 34, 35.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>The Doctor proceeds upon a &s;andy bottom, when he pleads, that the <HI>Meletians</HI> did not refu&s;e <HI>Paulinus,</HI> as an illegitimate Po&s;&s;e&s;&s;or, but becau&s;e he did not allow of the Meletian Clergy, as being originally con&s;ecrated by the <HI>Arians.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>Nothing le&s;s than the Popes Omnipotent Di&s;pen&s;ation, which <HI>Baronius</HI> pleads, can ju&s;tify the Doctor, when he a&s;&s;erts
<PB REF="13"> <HI>Paulinus</HI> the lawful Bi&s;hop of the <HI>Antiochian</HI> See. <HI>Pag. 35, 36, 37, 38.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>It is incon&s;equential, that tho' <HI>Paulinus</HI> was ju&s;tly excepted again&s;t, becau&s;e he was placed in <HI>Antioch</HI> by <HI>Lucifer,</HI> who was a Foreigner, and inconpetent to do it, he therefore might not be al&s;o excepted again&s;t, becau&s;e he was in Intruder upon <HI>Meletius.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>Since <HI>Paulinus</HI> was in po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion, what ever hand gave it him, he had a full Authority, upon the Doctor's princi|ples. <HI>Pag. 38.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>Catholick Bi&s;hops have exerci&s;ed their Epi&s;copal Functions out of their proper Di&s;tricts: As <HI>Athana&s;ius, Eu&s;ebius Vercellen&s;is, Hilary, Eu&s;ebius Samo&s;aten&s;is, Eu&s;ta|thius, Gregory the Great,</HI> which la&s;t, or his Deputy, made <HI>Au&s;tin</HI> Bi&s;hop of <HI>Canterbury.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>Our Reformation was, in all likelihood, bottom'd on the &s;ame principle, and is hardly, or not &s;o well, ju&s;tifiable any other way. <HI>pag. 39, 40, 41, 42.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>The Doctor outdoes his precipitant &s;elf, when he in&s;i&s;ts, that <HI>Meletius</HI> was received as Bi&s;hop of <HI>Antioch,</HI> and <HI>Paulinus</HI> rejected from the See, becau&s;e <HI>Meletius</HI> was not then di&s;enabled by the Secular Power, to &s;erve as Bi&s;hop there, but had the Empire's leave to return from his exile. <HI>pag. 43.</HI></ITEM>
</LIST>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="4" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. IV.</HEAD>
<LIST>
<ITEM>THE Doctrine of pa&s;&s;ive obedience is mightily exem|plified in the practice of <HI>Meletius</HI> and <HI>Eu&s;ebius Sa|mo&s;aten&s;is.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>The Bi&s;hops of that Age did not teach <HI>Mob</HI> Doctrines to their people, upon the Governments unju&s;t removal of their per&s;ons from them, nor though it &s;uppre&s;&s;ed &s;ome Ar|ticle of Faith.</ITEM>
<ITEM>They warned them under the&s;e and the like exigencies to
<PB REF="14"> continue in unity under their exil'd Pa&s;tours, and to pre|&s;erve them&s;elves from Schi&s;m, as well as from Here&s;ie, and to adhere to the remnant of the Prie&s;ts, and to exhort one another&punc; And through the&s;e practices they had, in Gods good time, their Bi&s;hops re&s;tored, and their eyes &s;aw their Teachers. <HI>pag. 44, 45, 46, 47.</HI></ITEM>
</LIST>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="5" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. V.</HEAD>
<LIST>
<ITEM>SOme Ob&s;ervations are made upon <HI>Paulinus, Meletius, Flavianus, &amp;c.</HI> which will be u&s;eful in the pre&s;ent Di&s;cour&s;e.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Other rea&s;ons be&s;ides Here&s;ie are a ju&s;t ground for a peoples not communicating with a Bi&s;hop that is only a Po&s;|&s;e&s;&s;or. <HI>pag. 48, 49.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>The Church has a power to con&s;titute Di&s;tricts, and make them fewer or more: even to make two Di&s;tricts in one and the &s;ame City: The Ancient Canon which provides that there be but one Bi&s;hop in one City, is not violated by it.</ITEM>
<ITEM>There was a &s;ettlement made at <HI>Antioch</HI> by con&s;ent of all Parties, that were concern'd in that See: It was ihe only way to make peace in that then di&s;tracted Church. <HI>pag. 50, 51, 52.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Flavianus</HI> and <HI>Evagrius</HI> &s;oon after broke this unity, which occa&s;ioned &s;ome new troubles, but God in his good time, and by his own ways, provided for its ree&s;tabli&s;hment. <HI>pag. 53, 54.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>The &s;eparation which the <HI>Eu&s;tathians</HI> fir&s;t made, was not upon the account of the <HI>Sophronians Ariani&s;m,</HI> they did not then profe&s;s it, but the contrary: But by rea&s;on of their un|ju&s;t po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion. <HI>pag. 55.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>The latitude young men, who had been for every Bi&s;hop that could get into po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion, whether he was an <HI>Arian, Homoou&s;ian,</HI> or an <HI>Eu&s;ebian,</HI> were the Bi&s;hops who car|ried it in the &s;econd General Council held at <HI>Con&s;tantinople,</HI>
<PB REF="14"> for <HI>Flavianus</HI> again&s;t the anteceding &s;tipulation, and &s;ome, at lea&s;t, of their mo&s;t &s;olemn Oaths to the contrary.</ITEM>
<ITEM>St. <HI>Gregory</HI> cho&s;e rather to relinqui&s;h his Bi&s;hoprick then receive <HI>Flavianus,</HI> their fal&s;e Bi&s;hop, contrary to the Church Laws.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Doctor <HI>Hody</HI> makes u&s;e of St. <HI>Gregory</HI>'s Re&s;ignation to a wrong purpo&s;e, when he brings it for a pre&s;ident for our de|prived Bi&s;hops Re&s;ignation.</ITEM>
<ITEM>A General Council does not oblige on &s;uch proceedings; nor on any, if they be not con&s;i&s;tent with the Faith once de|livered, relating to Government as well as to Doctrine. The other Apologizes for his &s;taying long upon this head. <HI>p. 58.</HI> to <HI>68.</HI></ITEM>
</LIST>
</DIV3>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="2" TYPE="chapter">
<HEAD>CHAP. II.</HEAD>
<DIV3 N="1" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. I.</HEAD>
<LIST>
<ITEM>D&V;ring the Reign of <HI>Con&s;tantine</HI> the Great, neither the Empires right nor power were thought to be competent to abdicate a Bi&s;hop, and di&s;&s;olve the relation between him and his Flock, and place a Succe&s;&s;or in his room, and oblige the Colledge and Dioce&s;s to receive him.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Con&s;tantine</HI> di&s;own'd any &s;uch Power and Right, as lodged in him, in the ca&s;e of <HI>Cecilianus</HI> and <HI>Majorinus,</HI> when both pleaded their rights to the See of <HI>Carthage,</HI> and the latter appeal'd to him, as his Judg.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Melchiades</HI> Bi&s;hop of <HI>Rome</HI> decided that Ca&s;e. <HI>&agrave; pag. 68. ad p. 76.</HI></ITEM>
</LIST>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="2" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. II.</HEAD>
<LIST>
<ITEM>IN this Section the errours of two &s;orts of men are corrected.
<LIST>
<ITEM><HI>1.</HI> Of tho&s;e that will have the right of placing Bi&s;hops in their Sees, and to di&s;place them, to have been in the Church, &s;o long as the Empire was Heathen, but it devolv'd on the Em|pire &s;o &s;oon as it became Chri&s;tian.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>2.</HI> Of tho&s;e who &s;ay, that the Bi&s;hops convey'd their rights
<PB REF="15"> to <HI>Con&s;tantine,</HI> when he became a Chri&s;tian, in Compo|&s;ition for his Secular Protection, and for the endowments which he po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ed their Bi&s;hopricks with, and &s;ome other out|ward Priviledge, all which he made Law.</ITEM>
</LIST></ITEM>
<ITEM>This Spiritual Power was then &s;olely in the Churches hands. <HI>a p. 76. ad p. 79.</HI></ITEM>
</LIST>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="3" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. III.</HEAD>
<LIST>
<ITEM>IN the Council of <HI>Tyre, Con&s;tantines</HI> Secular Mini&s;ters acted un&s;eemly in the ca&s;e of <HI>Athana&s;ius,</HI> and too much influenced the Bi&s;hops, but the&s;e only gave judgment there. <HI>Con&s;tantine</HI> did no more in his own right and in his own per|&s;on then back their Sentence again&s;t <HI>Athana&s;ius,</HI> with exiling him.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Con&s;tantine</HI> and <HI>Cyprian</HI> had the &s;ame &s;entiments, and their practice was the &s;ame, concerning the rights and power of the Church and State, in relation to Bi&s;hops. <HI>&acirc; p. 79. ad p. 87.</HI></ITEM>
</LIST>
</DIV3>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="3" TYPE="chapter">
<HEAD>CHAP. III.</HEAD>
<DIV3 N="1" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. I.</HEAD>
<LIST>
<ITEM>THE &s;tate of the Empire and the Church were the &s;ame, as to this affair, in <HI>Con&s;tantius</HI>'s days, as it was in <HI>Con&s;tantines.</HI> Which appears.
<LIST>
<ITEM><HI>1.</HI> From <HI>Con&s;tantius</HI>'s proceeding again&s;t <HI>Athana&s;ius</HI> in the Council of <HI>Antioch. p. 87, 88, 89.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>2.</HI> From <HI>Con&s;tantius</HI>'s proceedings in the Council of <HI>Sar|dica</HI> and <HI>Millane.</HI></ITEM>
</LIST></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Con&s;tantius</HI>'s care that the Bi&s;hop of <HI>Rome</HI> &s;hould be pre|&s;ent in the Council of <HI>Millane,</HI> to confirm <HI>Athana&s;ius</HI>'s Ab|dication in the Synods of <HI>Tyre</HI> and <HI>Antioch</HI> does not give the <HI>Romani&s;t</HI> that advantage he thinks it does. <HI>p. 89, 90, 91, 92.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>When <HI>Con&s;tantius</HI> a&s;&s;umed the Depo&s;ing Power, and in his own name, and the Imperial right, remov'd <HI>Athana&s;ius,</HI> and &s;ome other Bi&s;hops contrary to the Law of the Empire and
<PB REF="15"> the Church, <HI>Athana&s;ius</HI> tells him, that he is an &V;&s;urper, Antichri&s;t, <HI>&amp;c. p. 93, 94, 95, 96.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Ho&s;ius</HI> tells him to his face, that he intrudes into Chri&s;ts Office, and is to be accountable for it at the day of Judgment. other Bi&s;hops tell him that he is unpre&s;idented therein, <HI>&amp;c.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>If the&s;e great Bi&s;hops did think the fixing, or removing a Bi&s;hop, was an indifferent thing, and to be done at the Princes plea&s;ure, why did they &s;uffer rather then comply with <HI>Con&s;tantius</HI> in it? <HI>p. 97, 98.</HI></ITEM>
</LIST>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="2" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. II.</HEAD>
<LIST>
<ITEM><HI>AEtian</HI>'s <HI>Ariani&s;m</HI> was not publikely a&s;&s;erted and profe&s;&s;ed from the time that it was condemn'd in the <HI>Nicene</HI> Council, until the &s;econd <HI>Sirmian</HI> Council, nor &s;ettled in the Empire by Law, till &s;ome time after; and the Catholick Bi&s;hops were not oppo&s;ed and condemned becau&s;e they a&s;&s;erted the <HI>Eternal Generation</HI> in any one Council within that interval, but by rea&s;on that they oppo&s;ed and condemned <HI>Athana&s;ius</HI> and other Bi&s;hops <HI>unju&s;t</HI> and <HI>uncanonical</HI> Deprivations. <HI>p. 99, 100, 101.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>The <HI>Euzoian</HI> Creed, upon which <HI>Arius</HI> was received in the Council of <HI>Jeru&s;alem</HI> did not oppo&s;e the <HI>Homoou&s;ian</HI> Do|ctrine. <HI>p. 102, 103, 104.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>The <HI>Eu&s;ebians</HI> did not declare them&s;elves to be <HI>Arians</HI> in that Council of <HI>Antioch,</HI> where <HI>Eu&s;tathius</HI> was depo&s;ed, but quite contrary.</ITEM>
<ITEM>The <HI>Eu&s;tathians</HI> &s;eparated from them becau&s;e they brought in a fal&s;e Succe&s;&s;ion upon <HI>Eu&s;tathius.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>The <HI>Eu&s;ebians</HI> retein'd and profe&s;&s;ed the <HI>Homoou&s;ian</HI> Do|ctrine in the Council of <HI>Tyre. p. 105, 106, 107.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>They a&s;&s;erted the <HI>Eternal Generation</HI> in the following Coun|cil of <HI>Antioch,</HI> in which they made four Creeds, they there confirmed <HI>Athana&s;ius</HI>'s Depo&s;ition at <HI>Tyre</HI> for the &s;ame rea&s;ons it was there made, and for &s;ome new ones, but of the &s;ame nature. <HI>p. 108.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>They a&s;&s;erted it likewi&s;e in another <HI>Antiochian</HI> Creed, in
<PB REF="16"> the <HI>Sardican</HI> Council, in the <HI>P&s;eudo-Sardican</HI> Council in the <HI>Ea&s;t:</HI> all the World then profe&s;&s;ed it: even <HI>Con&s;tantius, Va|lens</HI> and <HI>Ur&s;acius. p. 109, 110, 111, 112, 113.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>An account is given of the various acceptions of the word <HI>Arian</HI> within our prefixed di&s;tance of time: which is nece&s;&s;ary to be con&s;idered by all that &s;tudy this Controver&s;y. <HI>p. 114, 115.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>The <HI>Sardican</HI> and <HI>P&s;eudo-Sardican</HI> Synods did not convene directly about matters of Faith, but concerning the removing of Bi&s;hops, each refu&s;ing to &s;ubmit to that Depo&s;ition which they conceived to be <HI>unju&s;t</HI> and <HI>uncanonical,</HI> tho the Secular Arm concurr'd in it. <HI>p. 116, 117.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>Since the Clergy of <HI>Siria</HI> and <HI>Pale&s;tine</HI> repented becau&s;e they had own'd <HI>Athana&s;ius</HI>'s abdication, and receiv'd a Po&s;&s;e&s;&s;or put upon him, if they had likewi&s;e con&s;ented to <HI>Arius</HI>'s Do|ctrine, he would certainly have required the &s;ame repentance from them by rea&s;on of it. <HI>p. 118.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>Their crime was in &s;ub&s;cribing to <HI>Athana&s;ius</HI>'s Condemna|tion, not to <HI>Exoukontiani&s;m;</HI> for which rea&s;on the Church refu&s;ed Communion with them, except upon their repen|tance. <HI>p. 119, 120.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>The exil'd Fathers of the Council of <HI>Millane</HI> were not <HI>Arians,</HI> but they declar'd, notwith&s;tanding again&s;t <HI>Athana|&s;ius</HI>'s Depo&s;ition. <HI>p. 121.</HI></ITEM>
</LIST>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="3" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. III.</HEAD>
<LIST>
<ITEM><HI>COn&s;tantius</HI> proceedings again&s;t <HI>Ho&s;ius</HI> and <HI>Liberius</HI> &s;hew that not <HI>Ariani&s;m</HI> but <HI>Athana&s;ius</HI>'s and &s;ome other Bi|&s;hop's Abdication was the point then principally under debate.</ITEM>
<ITEM>The Emperor's right does not extend unto their Spiritual Removal. <HI>p. 121.</HI> to <HI>128.</HI></ITEM>
</LIST>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="4" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. IV.</HEAD>
<LIST>
<ITEM>IN the fir&s;t <HI>Sirmian</HI> Council the <HI>Eu&s;ebians</HI> declar'd for the <HI>Eternal Generation,</HI> as they had done in the former Synod. <HI>p. 128.</HI></ITEM>
<PB REF="16">
<ITEM><HI>Con&s;tantius</HI> bani&s;h'd <HI>Liberius</HI> becau&s;e he would not own a fal&s;e Abdication and Succe&s;&s;ion; with which that Age could no otherwi&s;e comply then with a fal&s;e Article. <HI>p. 129.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>In the &s;econd <HI>Sirmian</HI> Council the <HI>Eu&s;ebians</HI> fir&s;t declare again&s;t the explication of the <HI>Homoou&s;ian</HI> Doctrine, and then a&s;&s;ert the Son to be inferior to the Father; to which la&s;t <HI>Ho&s;ius</HI> there &s;ub&s;cribed: but he repented of it. <HI>p. 130, 131.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>Church &V;nion and Articles of Faith are &s;pecificks and have their own entities, both are alike to be contended for, and main|tained. <HI>p. 132, 133.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>A fal&s;e &V;nion and Succe&s;&s;ion may not be own'd and embraced, though the Faith is inviolated.</ITEM>
<ITEM>The Prince was not conceived to be able to legitimate an unlawful Succe&s;&s;ion.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Nothing is more fal&s;e, then that an unju&s;t Po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion legiti|mates a Bi&s;hop, if he be not an Heretick: or is otherways un|exceptionable. <HI>p. 134.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>The <HI>Orientals</HI> that afterwards met, fir&s;t at <HI>Ancyra,</HI> and then at <HI>Sirmium,</HI> corrected the Here&s;ies and Bla&s;phemies of the &s;econd <HI>Sirmian</HI> Council, and there a&s;&s;erted the Son to be like the Father in all things, but they di&s;&s;ented from the <HI>Antiochian</HI> and fir&s;t <HI>Sirmian</HI> Councils, in that they anathematized the <HI>Ho|moou&s;ian</HI> Explication. <HI>p. 135.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>It is &s;hew'd wherein the difference con&s;i&s;ted between the <HI>Ho|moou&s;ians, Eu&s;ebians, Semi-Arians,</HI> and <HI>Exoukontians,</HI> or <HI>Arians</HI> properly &s;o called. <HI>p. 136, 137, 138.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>The Confirmation of the &s;econd <HI>Sirmian</HI> Creed was recom|mended by the <HI>Eu&s;ebians</HI> in the Council of <HI>Ariminum,</HI> but ca&s;t out: and the <HI>Nicene</HI> Faith was e&s;tabli&s;h'd, and tho&s;e Bi|&s;hops who oppo&s;ed it were depo&s;ed, by four hundred Bi&s;hops. <HI>Ibid.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>The &s;ame <HI>Sirmian</HI> Faith was, a little after, receiv'd, and the <HI>Nicene</HI> Faith condemned by the majority of tho&s;e very Fathers, through the craft and indu&s;try of <HI>Valens</HI> and <HI>Ur&s;acius,</HI> and <HI>Con&s;tantius</HI>'s power.</ITEM>
<ITEM>A <HI>remnant</HI> remain'd, and a&s;&s;erted the Catholick Faith and Succe&s;&s;ion, who&s;e memory was perpetuated, and &s;acred. <HI>p. 139.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>The Princes Arbitrary Right to remove a Bi&s;hop, and con&s;ti|tute
<PB REF="17"> a Succe&s;&s;or is a direct &s;tep to the Church's ruine, at his plea&s;ure. The <HI>Baroccian MSS.</HI> which ve&s;ts him with &s;uch a right, &s;hews the degeneracy of the <HI>Greek</HI> Church in tho&s;e times, to an exce&s;s. <HI>p. 140.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>When the <HI>Eu&s;ebians</HI> found them&s;elves unable to retrieve their <HI>Exoukontiani&s;m,</HI> and were nece&s;&s;itated to profe&s;s the <HI>Eter|n<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">l Generation,</HI> they, at length, gain'd the &s;ecular Arm on their &s;ide, and, through its a&s;&s;i&s;tance, &s;ometimes in their fal&s;e Sy|nods, and now and then in the Emperors right, deprived the Ca|tholick Bi&s;hops which &s;tood in their way, but upon pretended crimes which did not relate to Chri&s;ts eternal Godhead, and they thus obtain'd their ends, and brought their Here&s;ie a broad. <HI>p. 141.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>The Catholicks fore&s;aw the <HI>depths of Sathan,</HI> and &s;tood by their proper Bi&s;hops. All good Chri&s;tians are to oppo&s;e the &s;ame practice, and hold to their proper Bi&s;hops, when illegally removed. <HI>p. 142.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>The generality of Bi&s;hops in our <HI>Briti&s;h</HI> I&s;land have lately thought fit to give up their Brethern's Rights, and are therein become &s;o far De&s;ertors of the Ancient Church's practice, to the contrary. <HI>p. 143.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>The Council of <HI>Seleucia</HI> &s;o order'd it, that <HI>Exoukontiani&s;m</HI> was there ca&s;t out, and the <HI>Antiochian</HI> Creeds were confirm'd and received. But <HI>Acacius</HI> farther contrived, that, by <HI>Con&s;tan|tius</HI>'s power, his own Creed was ratified and received in a Synod, which was held at <HI>Con&s;tantinople,</HI> and <HI>Ariani&s;m</HI> appear'd bare fac'd in the World upon it, and was made the Religion of the Empire.</ITEM>
<ITEM>The Per&s;ecutions which were rais'd before, upon the account of the Bi&s;hops <HI>unlawful</HI> and <HI>uncanonical</HI> Abdications, and their illegal Succe&s;&s;ors, which the Catholicks would not own, are now carried on, becau&s;e they will not declare again&s;t the <HI>Eternal Ge|neration,</HI> and &s;ay that the Son is a Creature. <HI>p. 144, 145.</HI></ITEM>
</LIST>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="5" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. V.</HEAD>
<LIST>
<ITEM>THo&s;e Men mi&s;take matter of Fact within our fixed <HI>Epoche,</HI> who &s;ay, that the Catholicks refu&s;ed the Succe&s;&s;ors that
<PB REF="17"> were placed over them, upon an <HI>unju&s;t</HI> and <HI>uncanonical</HI> Abdica|tion of their proper Bi&s;hops, becau&s;e tho&s;e Succe&s;&s;ors were <HI>Arians,</HI> &s;ince <HI>Ariani&s;m</HI> was not then profe&s;&s;ed by them. <HI>p. 146.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>They all along declar'd, that the <HI>unju&s;tne&s;s</HI> and <HI>uncanonicalne&s;s</HI> of their Abdications was the rea&s;on that they did not comply with them.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Tho&s;e are &s;trangely mi&s;taken who &s;ay, that <HI>Ariani&s;m</HI> was the only rea&s;on, and their Schi&s;m alone would not ju&s;tify them in it: is not the Shi&s;m almo&s;t the only rea&s;on they give for it?</ITEM>
<ITEM>Bi&s;hop <HI>Ar&s;enius,</HI> who was one of the fal&s;e Evidences again&s;t <HI>A|thana&s;ius</HI> recanted as a Shi&s;matick, not as an <HI>Arian. p 147. ad. 150.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>Since the Catholick Bi&s;hops cho&s;e to be deprived, and were ready for Martyrdom, rather than &s;ubmit to fal&s;e Abdications and Suc|ce&s;&s;ions, tho they were made by the Secular Arm, it hence &s;eems very plain, that they did not account the receiving or not receiving them to be an <HI>indifferent thing:</HI> which was to follow the will of the Prince, or the ordering of an <HI>irre&s;i&s;tible Power,</HI> or pre&s;ent <HI>Convenience:</HI> e&s;pecially &s;ince they rejected them with the &s;ame aver&s;ion, zeal, and con&s;tancy, they did reject a fal&s;e Faith. <HI>p. 151.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>The <HI>Eu&s;ebians</HI> made, in tract of time, a head again&s;t the Do|ctrine, by excepting again&s;t the explication of the Eternal Genera|tion, when they profe&s;&s;ed it at the &s;ame time.</ITEM>
<ITEM>This was another of their artificial &s;teps by which they brought in their ranke&s;t <HI>Ariani&s;m:</HI> and the Son was generally received as a <HI>facture,</HI> made out of nothing. No one &s;tep leads more directly to the aboli&s;hing the mo&s;t Scriptural and Catholick Doctrine, if the literal &s;en&s;e be once que&s;tion'd. <HI>p. 152, 153.</HI></ITEM>
</LIST>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="6" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. VI.</HEAD>
<LIST>
<ITEM><HI>LIberius</HI>'s <HI>unju&s;t</HI> and <HI>uncanonical</HI> ejectment by <HI>Con&s;tantius,</HI> and <HI>Felix</HI>'s Po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion of his See, brings advantage to our cau&s;e, and di&s;advantage to Doctor <HI>Hody</HI>'s.</ITEM>
<ITEM>During <HI>Liberius</HI>'s bani&s;hment, he never own'd nor &s;ubmitted to <HI>Felix</HI> as Bi&s;hop of <HI>Rome.</HI> neither did the Believers at <HI>Rome</HI> receive him. <HI>p. 155, 156, 157, 158, 159.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>The two Presbyters, <HI>Marcellinus</HI> and <HI>Fau&s;tinus,</HI> &s;ay, that the
<PB REF="18"> people of <HI>Rome</HI> all along, and the Clergy at one time, adher'd to <HI>Liberius'</HI> and rejected <HI>Felix,</HI> upon <HI>Liberius</HI>'s Abdication and bani&s;hment. <HI>p. 160.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>The Believers after practice at <HI>Rome</HI> in adhering to <HI>Liberius</HI> &s;hews, that <HI>Felix's</HI> Po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion again&s;t the Laws of the Church, was reputed by them a ju&s;t ground for their not communicating with him, and that they then acknowledg'd. <HI>Liberius</HI> to be their Bi&s;hop. <HI>p. 161, 162, 163.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Liberius</HI> and the Believers at <HI>Rome</HI> are acquitted of Schi&s;m, tho the former, upon his return, immediately enter'd upon his Bi&s;hoprick, and executed his Epi&s;copal function: and the latter receiv'd, and communicated, with him, notwith&s;tanding that he had then &s;ub&s;crib'd to <HI>Athana&s;ius</HI>'s Deprivation and communi|cated with the <HI>Arians,</HI> and their fal&s;e Succe&s;&s;ors. <HI>p. 164, 165. 166.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Liberius</HI>'s return without a new Ordination, is a demon&s;tration, that his Lap&s;e was not, then, reputed to forfeit his Orders, nor to require a &s;econd Con&s;ecration. <HI>Ibid.</HI></ITEM>
</LIST>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="7" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. VII.</HEAD>
<LIST>
<ITEM>DOctor <HI>Hody</HI>'s Arguments are con&s;idered, which he brings in ju&s;tification of the validity of <HI>Liberius</HI>'s Deprivation, and <HI>Felix</HI>'s Succe&s;&s;ion.</ITEM>
<ITEM>He is in a great mi&s;take, when he &s;ays, the Catholicks refu&s;ed <HI>Felix,</HI> not as a Succe&s;&s;or to <HI>Liberius,</HI> but becau&s;e they were not &s;atisfied in his Orthodoxy, and he was Ordain'd by <HI>Arians. p. 167, 168, 169.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>The Doctors Argument from the Oath, which the Clergy are &s;aid to have taken to <HI>Liberius,</HI> notwith&s;tanding his bani&s;hment, &s;hews, that he does not under&s;tand the true grounds of rea&s;oning. <HI>p. 170.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>There is nothing more fal&s;e than his a&s;&s;erting <HI>Liberius</HI> to have &s;ub&s;cribed to <HI>Ariani&s;m. Liberius</HI> was not rejected as Bi&s;hop of <HI>Rome</HI> for that rea&s;on. <HI>p. 171.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>Since the Doctor owns, that <HI>Liberius</HI> was Orthodox at the time of his Abdication, and two years after; he mu&s;t own, likewi&s;e, that his Abdication was not lookt upon as a competent ground for the Believers Tran&s;lation of their Obedience, who, notwith&s;tanding, ad|her'd to him, during that time.</ITEM>
<PB REF="18">
<ITEM>If they afterwards did reject him as an Heretick, it will only affect us &s;o far, as it is prov'd, that our now deprived, and, by the <HI>many</HI> de&s;erted, Bi&s;hops are Hereticks likewi&s;e.</ITEM>
<ITEM>It was the work of God, in that <HI>Con&s;tantius</HI> brought <HI>Liberius</HI> back to his people. <HI>Liberius</HI> died a mo&s;t zealous <HI>Anti-Exoukon|tian.</HI> The Believers con&s;tant adhe&s;ion to him, before and after his exile was a &s;ecundary means of his ree&s;tabli&s;hment: they are therein, a great example to Po&s;terity, in the &s;ame, or the like ca&s;e. Our expectations are thence &s;trengthened, that God will provide, by the &s;ame, or other, means, that our Abdicated Bi&s;hops, &s;hall &s;till be own'd, and, in his good time, be re&s;tor'd unto us. <HI>p. 172, 173.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>The <HI>Roman</HI> Clergy might engage them&s;elves by Oath to <HI>Libe|rius</HI> that they would not receive another Bi&s;hop, upon his Abdica|tion; and, al&s;o, that they would not accept of an Heretical Bi&s;hop, that was likely to de&s;troy the Faith. <HI>p. 174.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>The Doctor's argument, by which he proves, that <HI>Felix</HI> was a law|full Bi&s;hop of <HI>Rome,</HI> becau&s;e <HI>Dama&s;us</HI> once thought him &s;o, is trifling. <HI>p. 175.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>He is not more true to ju&s;t rea&s;oning, when he argues on, and concludes <HI>Felix</HI> to be a lawful Bi&s;hop, becau&s;e the Bi&s;hops of his own Di&s;trict, communicated with, and receiv'd him, as their Metro|politan.</ITEM>
<ITEM>His other Authorities, which he produces, to the &s;ame purpo&s;e, are no more to be valued then his rea&s;onings, <HI>p. 176.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>Though <HI>Liberius,</HI> as the Doctor &s;ays, did receive the ordina|tions which <HI>Felix</HI> made, it proves nothing le&s;s, then that <HI>Liberius</HI> own'd him as the lawful Bi&s;hop of <HI>Rome. p. 177.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>The Authority of the whole <HI>We&s;tern</HI> Church, which, he &s;ays, own'd <HI>Felix,</HI> to have been one of the true Bi&s;hops of <HI>Rome,</HI> is not cogent either. <HI>p. 178.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>He does not mend his u&s;ual arguings, when he contends, that the whole <HI>Ea&s;tern</HI> Church own'd him as the true Bi&s;hop of <HI>Rome,</HI> be|cau&s;e <HI>Nicephorus,</HI> in his <HI>Chronology,</HI> has placed him among the Bi&s;hops of that See. <HI>p. 179.</HI></ITEM>
</LIST>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="8" TYPE="section">
<PB REF="19">
<HEAD>SECT. VIII.</HEAD>
<LIST>
<ITEM>IT is &s;hew'd, from a notable In&s;tance, upon the Election of <HI>Meletius</HI> to the See of <HI>Antioch,</HI> that, not only the Catholicks, but, the <HI>Arians</HI> di&s;ap|prov'd the bringing a <HI>Second</HI> into a full Chair, and thought the Second's Title to be invalidated by it: Though the <HI>Arians</HI> then broke, as all laws to &s;erve their turn, &s;o, this Church Law, and immediately brought in <HI>Euzoius</HI> upon <HI>Meletius,</HI> without an anteceding Church voydance. Doctor <HI>Hody</HI> may make them his, and his Parties, precedent in it, if he think fit. <HI>p. 181, 182.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>It is not &s;o trifling a thing as the Doctor thinks it to be, when men in&s;i&s;t on <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 word"> cancelling a right by tho&s;e ways it is u&s;ually done, but more e&s;pecially in the Church, which hath pre&s;cribed her own. <HI>p. 183.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>It is the duty of a Chri&s;tian Bi&s;hop to be very careful that he does not deliver up the rights of the Church, depo&s;ited in his hands, contrary to the end of their commitment to him, though an <HI>irre&s;i&s;tible Power,</HI> even the Emperor with his drawn &s;word, &s;hould demand them of him. Nothing but Church Mens unfaithfulne&s;s can betray the Churches right into forrein hands. The Se|cular and Spiritual Tru&s;ts were accounted at that time, even by <HI>Con&s;tan|tius,</HI> two distinct things. Nothing le&s;s then <HI>Eu&s;ebius</HI>'s &s;en&s;e of his obli|gation from God, could engage him to withhold the latter from <HI>Con&s;tantius,</HI> upon his demand.</ITEM>
<ITEM>The goodne&s;s of God has alwaies rai&s;ed up &s;ome choyce Men, in every exigence, who have a&s;&s;erted and maintain'd the rights of his Church: he will always pre&s;erve a <HI>Remnant</HI> for that purpo&s;e.</ITEM>
</LIST>
</DIV3>
</DIV2>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 TYPE="errata">
<HEAD>We could not attend the Pre&s;s as we de&s;ir'd to do, which has occa&s;ion'd &s;ome points to be mi&s;|placed, and other Typographical errors, part of which are here corrected; we hope the Reader will mend the re&s;t with his pen, as he goes along.</HEAD>
<P>PAge 6. l. 42. r. <HI>all the Bi&s;hops of the.</HI> p. 11. l. 38. <HI>for &s;ome,</HI> r. <HI>the &s;ame.</HI> p. 12. l. 23 r. <HI>pro|&s;cription.</HI> p. 21. l. 37. r. <GAP DESC="foreign">. p. 51. l. 19. r. <HI>implying.</HI> p. 56. r. <GAP DESC="foreign">. p. 61. l. 7. r. <GAP DESC="foreign"> p. 62. l. 2. r. <GAP DESC="foreign">. p. 71. l. 20. r. <HI>any heed.</HI> p. 85. l. 30. r. <HI>how oft.</HI> p. 102. l. 13. r. <HI>Pha<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">nicia.</HI> p. 103. l. 8. r. <GAP DESC="foreign">. p. 105. l. 24. r. <HI>Pamphilus.</HI> p. 107. l. 8. r. <HI>Sa&s;imus.</HI> p. 101. l. 37. r. <GAP DESC="foreign">. p. 115. l. 4. r. <HI>Exoucontitae.</HI> p. 116. l. 10. r. <HI>Philippolis.</HI> p. 117 l. 30. r. <HI>Sa|mo&s;atenian.</HI> p. 119 l. 21. <HI>for murther,</HI> r. <HI>their.</HI> p. 126. l. 11. <HI>for &s;ome,</HI> r. <HI>&s;eem.</HI> l. 33. r. <GAP DESC="foreign">. p. 129 l. 20. r. <HI>Sardican.</HI> p. 132. l. 16. r. <HI>Aaetian.</HI> p. 133. l. 6. r. <HI>&s;ubjected.</HI> p. 141 l. 3. r. <HI>if the &mdash;of Here&s;ie.</HI> p. 153. l. 1. r. <HI>that of the Fathers.</HI> p. 167. l. 29. r. <HI>premi&s;es.</HI> p. 175. l. 4. <HI>Dama&s;us.</HI></P>
<P><HI>In the Margin.</HI> P. 9. l. 4. r. <GAP DESC="foreign">. p. 3. <HI>pro H. Socrat.</HI> r. <HI>Hi&s;t. Sacr.</HI> p. 41. r. <HI>quae.</HI> ibid. r. <GAP DESC="foreign">. p. 55. r. <GAP DESC="foreign">. p. 71. l. 24. r. <HI>quid.</HI> l. 32. r. <HI>jam.</HI> p. 74. r. <HI>in vita.</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">. 77. r, <GAP DESC="foreign">. p. 8. <GAP DESC="foreign">. p. 84. <GAP DESC="foreign">. p. 112. <HI>coegi&s;ti.</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">. p. 120. <HI>de laude Athana&s;.&mdash; de Sanctis.</HI> p. 123. r. <HI>vitam.</HI> p. 171. r. 915.</P>
</DIV1>
</FRONT>
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="text">
<PB N="1" REF="19">
<HEAD><HI>Hi&s;torical Collections</HI> CONCERNING Eccle&s;ia&s;tical Affairs, <HI>&amp;c.</HI></HEAD>
<DIV2 N="1" TYPE="chapter">
<HEAD>CHAP. I.</HEAD>
<DIV3 N="1" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. I</HEAD>
<P>I Have taken &s;ome pains, in another Tract, and con&s;ult|ed the mo&s;t eminent Authorities and In&s;tances in the three fir&s;t Centuries of the Church; and there found that <HI>the &s;ecular Power</HI> is, all along, accounted to have no right in di&s;po&s;ing of the Bi&s;hops, as to their Spiri|tuals, in their re&s;pective Di&s;tricts and Governments; and that all <HI>Lay-deprivations,</HI> and Succe&s;&s;ors, or Seconds, pur&s;uant to them, are reputed to be <HI>uncanonical and unlawful,</HI> and were rejected, as &s;uch, and no ways to be complyed with by the then Bi&s;hops and Subjects of the Church; if any &s;uch thing &s;hould be attempted, as it was not within that period of time: Such power being &s;eated by the <HI>Father</HI> only in the <HI>Son,</HI> and thence derived, by the <HI>Son's</HI> Appointment, to the Apo&s;tles and Bi&s;hops their Succe&s;&s;ors, and confined to them until the Government it &s;elf &s;hall have an end, and <HI>be delivered up to the Father.</HI></P>
<P>I have al&s;o con&s;idered, and (if I mi&s;take not) expos'd the Weakne&s;s, Incon&s;i&s;tency, and Inconcludingne&s;s of <HI>Dr. Hody's</HI> Pleas, Objections and Arguments which he hath thought fit to u&s;e to the contrary, <HI>in his Ca&s;e of the Sees Vacant,</HI> &amp;c. And I once al&s;o thought to have made it all publick agreeably to it's Birthright, as being antecedent in it's compo&s;ure, and in the order of things to the&s;e following <HI>Hi&s;torical Collections:</HI> But, upon &s;econd
<PB N="2" REF="20"> thoughts, I have &s;ince changed my Mind; contenting my &s;elf, at pre&s;ent, with giving the Reader this little ta&s;te of the Doctor's performance upon th<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">t Subject: As, <HI>That the Heathen Emperors, tho'</HI> Nero's <HI>and</HI> Diocle&s;ians, <HI>had an immutable Right, an<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">e<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">cdent to our</HI> Saviours, <HI>by vertue of which they were fully in&s;tructed to dep<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">&s;e his Church Officers, as to their &s;piritual Cures, and appoint their Succe&s;&s;ors; and notwithstanding the Son ha<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">h received the &s;ame Au|thority, and inve&s;ted his Apo&s;tles, and the Bi&s;hops <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 word"> rightful Succe&s;&s;ors with it, what&s;oever the&s;e Bi&s;hops &s;hould do in p<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="3 letters"> nce of that Au|thority, was to be null and wholly repealed at the <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 word"> f tho&s;e Em|perors,</HI> i. e. <HI>Of</HI> Rome Heathen, <HI>and to give way <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 word"> <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters">r pre&s;ent Orders, even to the quitting them of their Charge and People in regard of Con&s;cience, if &s;o be they depo&s;ed them by a coercive Arm, and irretreivably: Nay if any irre&s;i&s;table party did it, it was to be the &s;ame in effect; and the otherwi&s;e lawful Bi&s;hops &s;tood obliged in Con&s;cience to receive it's force, and acquie&s;ce in it's depo&s;ing Sentence: And the want of &s;ome &s;uch abetting coercive irre&s;i&s;table Arm, was it which made the</HI> Novatians, Donati&s;ts, <HI>and</HI> Meletians, Schi&s;ma|ticks; <HI>and occa&s;ioned the Church of God to condemn them as &s;uch.</HI> And &s;urely this is hopeful Theology.</P>
<P>Leaving therefore this lucky Atchievement of the <HI>Doctor's,</HI> &s;o much for the honour and advantage of <HI>Chri&s;t and his Church,</HI> to that more full and particular account of it, which the World may have in due time, if <HI>God</HI> gives me Life and Opportunity; I continued my Labour, and enquired into the &s;en&s;e and pra|ctice of the Church and State when the Empire became <HI>Chri&s;ti|an;</HI> from <HI>Con&s;tantine the Great</HI> downwards throughout the be&s;t Ages: and I here found al&s;o, that not only the Bi&s;hops and Doctors, but even the Emperors them&s;elves, within this Interval, did conclude, that the &s;ecular, per&s;onal, removal of a Bi&s;hop from his Di&s;trict, as by Bani&s;hment, Impri&s;onment, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> whereby he became wholly uncapable, or le&s;s able for a time, to di&s;|charge his Pa&s;toral Function, did not directly, and by it's own force make way for a <HI>Second,</HI> or <HI>Suce&s;&s;or;</HI> and that no other but Church Hands could effectually depo&s;e him, and acquit his Peo|ple of their Duty to him; nor upon a ju&s;t depo&s;ition, con&s;titute a <HI>Succe&s;&s;or,</HI> and create in him a true Eccle&s;ia&s;tical, I may &s;ay, Go&s;pel Right over the Believers, within that Di&s;trict which is truly vacated, in the &s;ame mea&s;ure the Predece&s;&s;or had it, being ju&s;tly &s;uch ere he was depo&s;ed. The Empire, in becoming Chri&s;tian, had many advantages, as well as the Church; but it
<PB N="3" REF="20"> was not <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">hereupon ve&s;ted with the Church's <HI>peculium,</HI> (of which her di&s;po&s;ing of Bi&s;hops in their &s;everal di&s;trict, was then reputed one part) but remained the &s;ame (as in other re&s;pects, &s;o par|ticula<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ly in that) as whil&s;t it was <HI>Heathen.</HI> And tho' the argu|ment from the practice of the three fir&s;t <HI>Primitives,</HI> or <HI>Centuries,</HI> is not le&s;s demon&s;trative of this great Truth; yet that of the&s;e latter Ages comes nearer to our Adver&s;aries, and &s;huts up their Mouths more effectually, and does not give them that &s;eeming ad|vantage for the tra&s;hing our le&s;s thinking Adherents with the tri|flng Objections the other does. As, <HI>that the</HI> Heathen <HI>Emperors were ignorant of this Prerogative, or thought it le&s;s con&s;iderable, or not at all to be regarded, as they did the Christians them&s;elves, and their Re|ligion: What cared they for a</HI> Fairy Government, <HI>as</HI> Mr. Hobbs <HI>has &s;ince call'd it, and they then thought it to be? And &s;ince the Em|pire did not concern it &s;elf with it, who el&s;e but the Bi&s;hops &s;hould ma|nage it, as their Di&s;cretion directed them?</HI> But I do here ask the&s;e Men, who thus &s;eem to argue, had <HI>Con&s;tantine, Con&s;tantius, Jovian, Valentinian, Gratian,</HI> the two <HI>Theodo&s;ius's, Honorius,</HI> with other eminent Emperors, the &s;ame opinion of it's Regiment in general, or it's Governours, and their Succe&s;&s;ors in particular? or can they be &s;uppo&s;ed to have been regardle&s;s of their Church Prerogatives? Or to have &s;uffered the Bi&s;hops to a&s;&s;ume them? Be&s;ides, the Church (as the judicious <HI>Ca&s;&s;ander,</HI><NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Prefat. ad con&s;ultat.</NOTE> ^I hath ob&s;erv'd) under the Reign of the&s;e Emperours (<HI>Con&s;tantius</HI> only excepted) becomes a thorow Pre&s;ident for us in the&s;e now <HI>last dayes;</HI> our circum&s;tances being now altogether the &s;ame, <HI>under the Nur&s;ery of Kings and Queens.</HI> And we are not to plead that di&s;parity we may be allow'd to do, whil&s;t &s;he was in the Wilderne&s;s. And the&s;e con&s;iderations do move me, in part, to recommend to the publick the practices of the&s;e &s;ucceeding Ages in the fir&s;t place, as the mo&s;t likely to prevail upon a lethargick Generation in or|der to the receiving this great and univer&s;al Truth we here con|tend for; which hath remain'd as immutable under pro&s;perity, and <HI>when Kings and Queens</HI> were <HI>nur&s;ing Fathers and Mothers to the Church</HI> as under the Cro&s;s, and when they were its bitter ene|mies, and mo&s;t cruel per&s;ecutors.</P>
<P>But in the management of this enquiry I find, that I mu&s;t con|fine my &s;elf, at pre&s;ent, to two of the forementioned Reigns, <HI>viz.</HI> Tho&s;e of <HI>Con&s;tantine</HI> and <HI>Co<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">&s;tantius,</HI> who were the two fir&s;t Chri&s;tian Emperors; otherwi&s;e this Tract will be bulky and unweil|dy, both in and out of the Pre&s;s, and requ<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters">e a greater Pur&s;e and
<PB N="4" REF="21"> better advantages for the printing and publi&s;hing of it, than our pre&s;ent narrow circum&s;tances will give us leave to attain unto, promi&s;ing if God continue life and health unto me, to go over the re&s;t, and give the World a particular account of them, as re|lating to our pre&s;ent debate; and I &s;hall at pre&s;ent follow this method in the doing of it.</P>
<P N="1">I. I &s;hall &s;hew, that during the Reigns of <HI>Con&s;tantine</HI> and <HI>Con|&s;tantius,</HI> the removing of a Bi&s;hop from his Di&s;trict by their own, or any other forceable or illegal hands, tho' rendring him thereby uncapable to govern, or &s;o far di&s;enabling him that he <HI>could not</HI> (in Dr. <HI>Hody</HI>'s words) <HI>exerci&s;e his Epi&s;copal Function, as before,</HI> was not reputed, upon Catholick Principles, and by the Catholicks of tho&s;e Ages, to affect his right, and make way for the placing a <HI>Succe&s;&s;or</HI> upon him, as in a Chair which is made vacant upon tho&s;e terms, which the Church allows.</P>
<P N="2">II. I &s;hall further &s;hew, That, during the Reigns of <HI>Con&s;tan|tine</HI> and <HI>Con&s;tantius,</HI> the Empire was not reputed, upon Catho|lick Principles, and by the Catholicks of that time (nor even by mo&s;t of the Hereticks) to be ve&s;ted with a right to abdicate a Bi&s;hop, when a <HI>Po&s;&s;e&s;&s;or;</HI> and by vertue of &s;uch his Abdication, or Depo&s;ition, to acquit his Subjects of that &s;piritual Allegiance they owed to him, tho' he was, in his per&s;on uncapable to exer|ci&s;e his pa&s;toral Function among them: Neither was the Empire under&s;tood to be ve&s;ted with any &s;uch Right as to enthrone a Bi|&s;hop, and rightfully po&s;&s;e&s;s him of an Epi&s;copal Chair, tho' it were vacant upon the terms which the Church allows, and by vertue of that po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion from his &s;ecular Arm, to enable him to demand Obedience of the Officers and Believers within that di&s;trict, of which he is &s;o po&s;&s;e&s;s'd; nor to lay an obligation on the &s;aid Officers and Believers to receive, and obey him; it being only the Church hands that were then believ'd to be capa|ble of doing it. And farther if any Emperour, or otherwayes illegal power has attempted and effected &s;uch a thing; and &s;o &s;et up, or depriv'd a Bi&s;hop; a competent number of the Col|ledge, or Epi&s;copal fraternity, and of under Officers and Believ|ers, that were truly con&s;cientious and Chri&s;tian, have alwayes remon&s;trated, upon Go&s;pel Principles, and adhered notwith&s;tan|ding to the one, and rejected the other.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="2" TYPE="section">
<PB N="5" REF="21">
<HEAD>SECT. II.</HEAD>
<P>FIRST of all, then I &s;hall &s;hew, that during the Reigns of <HI>Con&s;tantine</HI> and <HI>Con&s;tantius,</HI> the removing a Bi&s;hop from his di&s;trict by their own, or any other illegal, forcible hands, tho' rendring him thereby uncapable to govern, or &s;o far di&s;|enabling him, that he <HI>could not</HI> (in Dr. <HI>Hody</HI>'s words) <HI>exerci&s;e his Epi&s;copal Function as before,</HI> was not reputed upon Catholick Principles, and by the Catholicks of tho&s;e Ages to affect his Right, and make way for the placing a Succe&s;&s;or upon him, as in a Chair which is made vacant upon tho&s;e Terms, which the Church allows. And of this St. <HI>Athana&s;ius</HI> is a full and preg|nant evidence, beyond all contradiction; who was forc'd from his Country, and the Execution of his Epi&s;copal Function, fal|ling under the wrath of &s;everal potent Emperors; and <HI>Con|&s;tantine</HI><NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Athana&s;. apol. <HI>2.</HI> Socrat. hi&s;t. Eccl. l. <HI>1.</HI> c. <HI>23.</HI></NOTE> <HI>the Great</HI> bani&s;h'd him into <HI>France; Con&s;tantius</HI><NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg"><HI>Sozom. l.</HI> 4. <HI>c.</HI> 2&punc; 8. <HI>Athana&s;. Apol. de fug&acirc;, p.</HI> 695. 6, 7, 8, 9.</NOTE> his Son made him fly from <HI>Alexandria</HI> by rea&s;on of a great Per&s;ecution which he rais'd upon him, and the re&s;t of the Catholicks; <HI>Va|lens</HI><NOTE N="&Verbar;" PLACE="marg">Socrat. l. <HI>4.</HI> c. <HI>12.</HI> Sozo. l. <HI>6.</HI> c. <HI>12.</HI></NOTE> his wrath was no le&s;s cruel to him, upon which he ab|&s;conded four Months in his Father's Sepulchre; and <HI>Julian</HI><NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Soz. l. <HI>3.</HI> c. <HI>12.</HI> Theodor, l. <HI>3.</HI> c. <HI>8.</HI></NOTE> fir&s;t &s;ought his life, and then exil'd him, tho' he repeal'd <HI>Con|&s;tantius</HI>'s Edict again&s;t him upon his coming to the Throne. Now, was this great Patriarch er'e the le&s;s a Bi&s;hop for all this? Did his People think that his violent di&s;po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion any ways impair'd his Right and Title to them, as his Flock; and that not only under <HI>Julian</HI>'s, but even under <HI>Con&s;tantine</HI>'s force and bani&s;hment? Did they under the&s;e his &s;everal ab&s;ences, or any one of them, pretend that they were quitted of their Sub|ordination to him, and look out for a Succe&s;&s;or? Or can Dr. <HI>Hody</HI> prove, That he, <HI>not exerci&s;ing his Epi&s;copal Power as before, laid claim to their obedience,</HI> by &s;ome &s;uch <HI>publick &s;ignification of his will,</HI> in the doing of which, the Doctor<NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg">The Ca&s;e of the Sees, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> p. <HI>7.</HI></NOTE> &s;ays, <HI>our pre&s;ent ejected Bi&s;hops</HI> are wanting; and thereby made it known to his People, that he did not re&s;ign and <HI>give his con&s;ent, that a Succe&s;&s;or &s;hould be acknowledg'd,</HI> but retained his Right; whereas ours lo&s;t theirs, in giving way to a Succe&s;&s;or, by not doing of it? Did even the <HI>Eu&s;ebians,</HI> who were his profe&s;s'd enemies, and de&s;ir'd, and endeavour'd all they could to bring a Succe&s;&s;or upon him, and irretrievably depo&s;e him, think &s;uch a removal made a ju&s;t and effectual way unto it? If &s;o: Why did they take an ad|vantage
<PB N="6" REF="22"> of his ab&s;ence in the <HI>Synod of Tyre,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Athan. Apolog. p. <HI>797.</HI> Socrat. l. <HI>1.</HI> c. <HI>21.</HI></NOTE> and in &s;hew at lea&s;t, the<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">e depo&s;e him? And afterwards in a <HI>Council at</HI><NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg">Athan. Epi&s;t. ad Orthodox. p. <HI>944.</HI> Socrat. l. <HI>2.</HI> c. <HI>6.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Antioch,</HI> (which was pretended to meet upon another bu&s;ine&s;s, to Con|&s;ecrate a Church) &s;lily bring in <HI>Gregorius,</HI> as a Succe&s;&s;or upon him? All this abundantly &s;hews, that the &s;ecular removal was not then thought competent for di&s;&s;olving the Relation between a Bi&s;hop and his People, <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ho' it was made by <HI>Co<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">&s;tantine</HI>'s own hand; and that he receiv'd no new Right, which enabled him to do it, by being a Chri&s;tian; nor was more comp<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">tent for it than <HI>Trajan, Decius,</HI> or even a <HI>Diocle&s;ian</HI> had been b<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">fore him.</P>
<P>Again, the ca&s;e of the other Catholick Bi&s;hops, who &s;uffer'd with <HI>Athana&s;ius</HI> under <HI>Con&s;tantius,</HI> and were remov'd f<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">om their Bi&s;hopricks (as he had been, in the &s;ame cau&s;e) by bani&s;hment, impri&s;onment, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> is no le&s;s pregn<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">nt an eviden<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">e on our &s;ide, as of <HI>Paulinus</HI> Bi&s;hop of <HI>Triers, Lucifer Calaritanus</HI> Bi&s;hop of <HI>Sar|dinia, Eu&s;ebius</HI> of <HI>Ver&s;elli, Diony&s;ius</HI> of <HI>Millan, P<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ulus</HI> of <HI>Con&s;tan|tinople, Hillary</HI> of <HI>Poicteirs,</HI> with <HI>Ho&s;ius, Liberius,</HI> <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters">d many others, all indeed, that would n<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">t either &s;ubmit t<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> <HI>Athana&s;ius</HI>'s unju&s;t and uncanonical depo&s;ition, or el&s;e betray their Faith in the <HI>Eter al Son of God,</HI> by retracting their fir&s;t Sentences and De|clarations in <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">tte&s;tation of it, or do both But did the <HI>Homo&Taurus;&s;ians</HI> declare, either that the&s;e were the le&s;s Bi&s;hops for it? Or the le&s;s Bi&s;hops over tho&s;e who had been placed in di&s;tricts under them? Tho' <HI>the Supream Power was peremptory again&s;t them, and had publickly declar'd, that they &s;hould govern no longer; and it was impo&s;&s;ible that they &s;hould exerci&s;e their Epi&s;copal Juri&s;diction as before.</HI> Did they look upon their ab&s;ence as a ju&s;t voidance of their Sees, or as any ways making room for a <HI>Succe&s;&s;or?</HI> Or did they, thereupon &s;ubmit to tho&s;e <HI>Seconds,</HI> whom <HI>Con&s;tantius,</HI> or ra<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">her his naughty Courtiers, and the <HI>Eu&s;ebians</HI> which joyn'd them for that purpo&s;e, plac'd in their Chairs? Or, (becau&s;e the <HI>Doctor</HI> will &s;ay, that they refus'd them, becau&s;e they were not Or<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">hodox, but <HI>Arrians</HI> as he often does in other ca&s;es) did they then think them&s;elves oblig'd to look out for new Bi&s;hops that were truly Catholicks? We read of no &s;uch thing in our Story, but the contrary: And St. <HI>Hillary</HI> in particular gives this accourt of him&s;elf, and his Epi&s;copal Right, under his exile, in re&s;pect of his fellow Bi&s;hops in the <HI>Gallican</HI> Churches, and the Bi&s;hops of the Chri&s;tian World, and his own &s;ingle di&s;trict;<NOTE N="&Verbar;" PLACE="marg">Lib. ad Con|&s;tantium. in ini|ti<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">.&mdash;Epi&s;copus eg<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> &s;<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">m in omni|um Gallicarum E<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">cle&s;iarium atque Epi&s;copo|rum communi|one, li<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">et exilio perma<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">en<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">, &amp; Eccle&s;iae adhuc per presb<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">teros <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 word"> c<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">mmuni|<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="4 letters"> di&s;t<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters">ba|<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters">s.</NOTE> <HI>I am,</HI> &s;aith he, <HI>a Bi&s;hop in the Communion of all the</HI> Ga<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">lican <HI>Churches, and Bi|&s;h<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ps, and the Christian World, and my own di&s;trict, di&s;tributing
<PB N="7" REF="22"> Communion to the Church by my Presbyters, tho' I remain a bani&s;h'd man.</HI> His &s;ecular and unju&s;t deprivation did not cut him off from the Colledge of Bi&s;hops, nor take his own Officers and Peo|ple from him; but they retain'd their ju&s;t communion, and dependance upon him, in the things of God, as before. And it is no le&s;s evident that the People at <HI>Rome</HI> adher'd to <HI>Libe|rius</HI> again&s;t <HI>Felix,</HI> and the Emperor at once, when he was de|pos'd by the &s;ame violent hand, and precarious authority; of which I &s;hall &s;peak particularly anon. And the truly devout Chri&s;tians, likewi&s;e kept them&s;elves together in a body, as well as they could, in a certain place whither they fled, upon the per&s;ecution which happen'd immediately upon the <HI>Council</HI> of <HI>Ariminum,</HI> when their Bi&s;hops were taken from them; and there they remain'd, <HI>not without Chri&s;t, when</HI> Cephas <HI>was in Pri&s;on,</HI> and uncapable of acting the part of an Apo&s;tle among them, (as the Doctor<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>Pag.</HI> 12.</NOTE> repre&s;ents us now to be under the like circum&s;tances) but without their Bi&s;hops, who had been taken from them, and &s;o much of the outward Mini&s;try as depended upon their per&s;onal pre&s;ence among them: during which time, they had the Mini&s;trations of the <HI>Spirit</HI> plentifully pour'd upon them by other means, through God's u&s;ual mercy to his people in &s;uch extremities; and it's Graces and Vertues did &s;o far a|bound unto them, that they grew highly exemplary in Faith and good Works: For the better pre&s;ervation of who&s;e Me|mories to po&s;terity St. <HI>Athana&s;ius,</HI> &s;omewhere in his Works, tells us, that they had a Monument erected. They did not &s;u&s;pect them&s;elves to be under an obligation to take to them&s;elves new Bi&s;hops, becau&s;e their old ones were <HI>forcibly</HI> remov'd, <HI>and their eyes did no longer &s;ee them.</HI></P>
<P>It is ten to one but that Dr. <HI>Hody</HI> will come in here al&s;o with his wonderful Argument, and prove, that tho' the&s;e Chri&s;ti|ans cannot be &s;aid to have actually di&s;own'd an Orthodox Bi&s;hop, put upon them by the Empire, becau&s;e then it did not think fit to put one upon them; yet they would not have di&s;own'd &s;uch a Bi&s;hop, if the Empire had thought fit to impo&s;e him. But, if we do admit his con&s;equence upon his negative in any other ca&s;es, which &s;trangely infers, <HI>That they would receive &s;uch a Bi&s;hop, becau&s;e they did not receive him:</HI> It cannot hold in our pre&s;ent <HI>Homo&Taurus;&s;ian</HI>'s ca&s;e, &s;ince it is well known, that they did then, and their Succe&s;&s;ion all along, oppo&s;e <HI>Novatiani&s;m,</HI> in the &s;ame degree that St. <HI>Cyprian</HI> had done before them, and the other Catholick
<PB N="8" REF="23"> Bi&s;hops his contemporaries, who&s;e common rule was,<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Lib. <HI>3.</HI> Ep. ii. Et Li. <HI>4.</HI> Ep. <HI>2.</HI></NOTE> <HI>one God, one Chri&s;t, one Faith, one Bi&s;hop;</HI> and that they enthroniz'd none, but <HI>in loco Petri po&s;t Fabiani mortem,</HI> by the Church Rules of Suc|ce&s;&s;ion, and by Church-mens hands; believing it as much their duty not to enthrone, if upon other terms, as to reject the <HI>Gno&s;tick's Aeones, Marcion's two Gods,</HI> and the <HI>Gentiles Polythei&s;m:</HI> As, if God gives me life and opportunity, I &s;hall &s;hew, when I come to give an account of the <HI>Cyprianick Succe&s;&s;ion.</HI> And tho&s;e few Catholicks, of whom we read, that &s;ome time after, and but once, they joyn'd with the <HI>Novatians</HI> in their Publick Prayers, and by con&s;equence, receiv'd their illegal Bi&s;hops, when the <HI>Arrian</HI> Per&s;ecution was &s;ore upon them, are not therein commendable, nor con&s;equently, exemplary: But of the&s;e al&s;o I am to &s;peak particularly in their ju&s;t place.</P>
<P>I will annex the no le&s;s fam'd in&s;tances of <HI>Eu&s;tathius, Meletius, Paulinus, Flavianus</HI> and <HI>Evagrins,</HI> (for tho' the two latter come not at all within the bounds of our fixed Epoche, which ends within the Reign of <HI>Con&s;tantius;</HI> yet their Sto<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">y will be told here with more advantage) who all of them pretended to be Bi&s;hops of <HI>Antioch,</HI> tho' all of them were not truly &s;uch; &s;ince an examination of their whole Story, and a faithful repre&s;enta|tion of it, will not only farther confirm the Truth of our Point in hand, <HI>viz.</HI> That the di&s;po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ing, or local removing a Bi&s;hop, does not affect his Right to that Chair, from which he is re|moved; nor make way for a <HI>Succe&s;&s;or:</HI> but it will al&s;o give us an opportunity, and ju&s;t ground for the clearing &s;everal other Truths, which Dr. <HI>Hody is engag'd</HI> to deny and oppo&s;e; but we to a&s;&s;ert and defend in the management of our pre&s;ent Debate: tho' <HI>he</HI> is very confident that the whole Story, and each of it's Circum&s;tances make only on his &s;ide; and thereupon takes a great deal of pains and care in giving an account of it, pur&s;uant to the De&s;ign of his <HI>Baroccian Manu&s;cript.</HI> And in the fir&s;t place,</P>
<P>It will be found apparently manife&s;t from <HI>Eu&s;tathius</HI>'s ca&s;e, that the removal of a Bi&s;hop, and taking him from his per&s;onal care and in&s;pection of his people, by bani&s;hment, or any other means, does neither cut off their Relation and <HI>Duty</HI> to him, nor his Relation, nor right to them; but they notwith&s;tanding remain his Flock, and he their Bi&s;hop. For that great Bi&s;hop was bani&s;h'd into <HI>Thrace</HI><NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg">Chry&s;o&s;t. de laud. Eu&s;tathii Tom. <HI>5.</HI> Ed. Lat. Paris. Et Theod. l. <HI>1.</HI> c. <HI>21.</HI></NOTE> by <HI>Constantine,</HI> in the year 329, or 330. and yet was continu'd and acknowledg'd Bi&s;hop of <HI>Antioch</HI>
<PB N="9" REF="23"> by all the truly Orthodox, until <HI>Meletius</HI> was made Patriarch of that See, which was in the year 360. according to the Doctor's<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Not. in MS. Barroccian.</NOTE> own computation, although he did not come back to <HI>Antioch,</HI> nor into that di&s;trict, until he was call'd home by <HI>Jovian,</HI> which was not till the year 370. and ten years after <HI>Meletius</HI> had been Bi&s;hop there, as the <HI>Doctor</HI> tells us<NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg">Ibid.</NOTE> out of <HI>Socrates</HI><NOTE N="&Verbar;" PLACE="marg"><HI>Li</HI> 4. <HI>c</HI> 14 15, <HI>Li</HI> 6. <HI>c.</HI> 13</NOTE> <HI>and Sozomen:</HI> And his own words do al&s;o farther vouch this in part. <HI>I ob&s;erve</HI> (&s;aith he)<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Ca&s;e of the See<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> c. <HI>17.</HI> p. <HI>188.</HI></NOTE> <HI>that</HI> Eu&s;tathius, <HI>being in bani&s;hment, con|tinu'd to take care of the Orthodox of</HI> Antioch, <HI>as their Bi&s;hop (as much as he could at &s;o great a di&s;tance) as long as tho&s;e that were put into his place were</HI> Arians: <HI>But as &s;oon as</HI> Meletius, <HI>an Orthodox Per&s;on, was made Bi&s;hop in his room, he peaceably gave over, and ne|ver concern'd him&s;elf any more as Bi&s;hop of</HI> Antioch. And he is moreover &s;o kind to our cau&s;e (tho' we are not to thank him for it, as the Sequel will make to appear) as to back this great Truth with the Authority of St. <HI>Chry&s;o&s;tome,</HI><NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg">De laud Eu|&s;tathii, uti &s;upr <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"></NOTE> who&s;e words to that purpo&s;e, I &s;hall at large repeat, as they are &s;et down and tran&s;lated by him;<NOTE N="&Verbar;" PLACE="marg"><HI>pag.</HI> 191.</NOTE> fore&s;eeing, that I &s;hall have occa&s;ion to make u&s;e of them hereafter.</P>
<P><NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><GAP DESC="foreign">, &amp;c. &mdash;<GAP DESC="foreign">.</NOTE><HI>God permitted the ble&s;&s;ed</HI> Eu&s;tathius <HI>to be led away into bani&s;h|ment, that he might make the &s;trength of truth, and the weakne&s;s of Hereticks more manife&s;t. When he was to be carried away, tho' he was to leave the City, yet he would not cea&s;e to love you. And he did not therefore look upon him&s;elf to be depriv'd of his Epi&s;copal Office be|cau&s;e he was thru&s;t out of the Church, but &s;o much the more he applied him&s;elf to take care of you, and calling you together, he exhorted you not to yield to Wolves, nor betray the Flock to 'em. &mdash; When they invaded the Flock he did not leave them, tho he was not po&s;&s;e&s;t of the Epi&s;copal Chair. But that his generous and philo&s;ophical Soul di<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> not value: The honours of a Governour he lef<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> to others, but he bore the burthen of a Governour, being conver&s;ant among Wolves. &mdash;In doing thus, he formed all to the true Faith,</HI> neither did he de&s;i&s;t, till, by the Providence of God, the ble&s;&s;ed <HI>Meletius</HI> came hither, <HI>and receiv'd the whole Ma&s;s. The one &s;ow'd and the other reap'd.</HI></P>
<PB N="10" REF="24">
<P>And the fam'd <HI>Meletius,</HI> who &s;ucceeded <HI>Eu&s;tathius</HI> in the <HI>An|tiochian</HI> Chair, is a no le&s;s evident and pregnant proof of the &s;ame, when he was bani&s;h'd by <HI>Con&s;tantius</HI> into <HI>Armenia,</HI> and after|wards by <HI>Valens:</HI> but did he then look upon his People to be le&s;s his Flock; or they upon him to be le&s;s their Bi&s;hop, by rea&s;on of it? Did the former thereupon withdraw his Pa&s;toral Care and In&s;tructions, or the latter their filial Duty and Relation? The <HI>Doctor</HI> is here on our &s;ide again, and confe&s;&s;eth, That his people did not look upon the Emperor's Secular Edict to have any in|fluence upon their Bi&s;hops Spiritual Right, nor upon their Duty ari&s;ing from it; but that when <HI>Meletius</HI> return'd from his fir&s;t bani&s;hment under <HI>Constantius,</HI> together with the re&s;t of the Catholick Bi&s;hops, by the favour of the Emperor <HI>Julian, Lucifer Calaritanus</HI> having Con&s;ecrated <HI>Paulinus,</HI> and &s;eated him in his Chair during his ab&s;ence; <HI>this</HI><NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>Pag.</HI> 192.</NOTE> <HI>the greate&s;t part of the Orthodox did not allow of, but ceas'd to receive him as their Bi&s;hop, and when their Bi&s;hop</HI> Meletius <HI>return'd, adher'd to him;</HI> and his own St. <HI>Chry&s;ostome</HI><NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg">Pa&s;tor abigebatur, &amp; oves non di&s;pergebantur: guberna|tor expellebatur, &amp; &s;capha non mergebatur: agricola fugabatur &amp; vitis plus fruct&ucirc;s ferebat; &mdash;non illa|tae tentationes, non impenden|tia pericula, non viae longi|tudo, non diuturnitas tem|poris, ne&abque; quicquam aliud nos potuit disjungere, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> Sti. Chry&s;o&s;t. Hom. de Meletio Antioch. &s;eu de laude Meletii. Ed. Lat. Tom. <HI>5.</HI> Pari&s;i. <HI>1614.</HI></NOTE> thus expre&s;&s;eth him&s;elf upon <HI>Meletius</HI>'s &s;econd bani&s;hment, by <HI>Valens into Armenia. The Pa&s;tor was driven away, and the Sheep were not di&s;pers'd; the Governour was expell'd, and the Ship was not &s;unk: the Husbandman was put to flight, and the Vine brought forth more Fruit.</HI> In &s;hort, the Holy Father goes on, and decla<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">es, <HI>That no temptations, no dangers, neither the length of the way, nor the continuance of time, nor any thing el&s;e could disjoynt their daily conver&s;e with their ble&s;&s;ed Pa&s;tor</HI> Meletius; <HI>but he was the nearer to them by his expul&s;ion; and when his body was in</HI> Armenia, <HI>his mind and &s;pirit was daily with them: and on the other &s;ide, when they were circum&s;crib'd within the confines of</HI> Antioch, <HI>they were flying away in the &s;pirit of love into</HI> Armenia, <HI>beholding there his countenance, hearing his most ble&s;&s;ed voice; and that their reception of him, when it pleas'd God to &s;end him again to them, was proportionate; the whole City went out to meet him; &s;ome embrac'd his feet, ki&s;s'd his hands, and heard his voice; and tho&s;e that could not approach him by rea&s;on of the multitude, receiv'd equal &s;atisfaction, and the &s;ame influences by looking upon him at a di&s;tance.</HI> I will add, and all this when <HI>Paulinus,</HI><NOTE N="&Verbar;" PLACE="marg">Socrat. H. E. l. <HI>3.</HI> c. <HI>7.</HI> l. <HI>5.</HI> c. <HI>5.</HI> Soz. l. <HI>5.</HI> c. <HI>12.</HI></NOTE> an Ortho|dox Bi&s;hop had been plac'd and receiv'd there; and was in actual po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion of his Chair.</P>
<P>So great is the tye and obligation between a Pa&s;tor and his People, when the relation and dependence is ju&s;t and true betwixt
<PB N="11" REF="24"> them: this Love-knot, and Obedience, is &s;o made up, that no force or pro&s;cription can di&s;&s;olve and loo&s;e it. The Bi&s;hop then is not then depriv'd, and thru&s;t out, <GAP DESC="foreign"> (in St. <HI>Chry|&s;o&s;tom</HI>'s language,) of his Church and Pre&s;idency in it, becau&s;e a &s;trong hand removes him thence; nor the People of their Right in him, or of God's ble&s;&s;ings by him, tho' he be in per&s;on quite taken away and bani&s;h'd from them. Believers may lo&s;e <HI>Chri&s;t,</HI> by runing from <HI>Cephas</HI> (in his exil'd &s;tate) to <HI>Paul; i. e.</HI> from their true Bi&s;hop to a fal&s;e Bi&s;hop; but they never lo&s;e <HI>Chri&s;t,</HI> who re&s;olve to have <HI>Cephas, i. e.</HI> their true Bi&s;hop, tho' he be <HI>in pri&s;on;</HI> and refu&s;e a fal&s;e one. Dr. <HI>Hody</HI> alone is &s;o un|thinking, as to &s;uppo&s;e the contrary.<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>Pag.</HI> 12.</NOTE> At lea&s;t, they &s;hall never lo&s;e Chri&s;t whil&s;t they keep to that re&s;olution; if they do not fail in other Duties, which are to be it's concomitants and in&s;e|parable adjuncts: for a faileur in which, a bare recognition of, and outward communion with him will not make a compen&s;a|tion: tho' a firm adherence to their Bi&s;hop is an eminent Vertue, and will be in it &s;elf always acceptable; and it will always be requir'd of <HI>God</HI> from them, <HI>Spiritu charitatis,</HI> as the <HI>Antiochians</HI> are &s;aid to have di&s;charg'd it to <HI>Meletius,</HI> when he was a bani&s;h'd man in <HI>Armenia,</HI> and ab&s;ent in body from them: they then pur&s;uing him with their love and duty; and retaining, entirely, their &s;ubordination to him.</P>
<P>And the&s;e two great, and immediately &s;ucce&s;&s;ive examples, &s;o highly and ju&s;tly extoll'd by<NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg">Homil. de Sancto Meletio.</NOTE> St. <HI>Chry&s;ostome,</HI> will &s;omewhat at lea&s;t vindicate the practi&s;e of a <HI>Remnant</HI> at this day of the <HI>Church of England,</HI> who retain the &s;ame heart and affections to|wards their lawful Pa&s;tors, tho' not exil'd into a &s;trange Land, yet under the like re&s;traint, by the Secular Arm, <HI>Eustathius and Meletius</HI> once were. And as our ejected Fathers, the Prelates, do not look upon them&s;elves &s;o to be <HI>depriv'd,</HI> as to be quitted of their Epi&s;copal Functions, but execute them for their Peoples good, with the &s;ame love and care tho&s;e two excellent Patriarchs did, according to their be&s;t opportunities; &s;o their People retain the &s;ame dependance upon, and duty for them, the Believers in <HI>Antioch</HI> did for their Bi&s;hops, (tho' <HI>God</HI> knows, as in <HI>Antioch,</HI> &s;o in <HI>England</HI> the <HI>Remnant</HI> is but &s;mall) and cea&s;e not to love and obey them; tho' they do cea&s;e in &s;ome con&s;picuous manner, as &s;ome time &s;ince, to p<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">e&s;ide over them. Neither do I que&s;tion that our Believers and inf<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">rior Officers per&s;everance in &s;o doing, will come &s;hort of theirs at <HI>Antioch,</HI> thorough God's &s;ame continuance of
<PB N="12" REF="25"> his mercies to them: or that they are le&s;s ready to receive their per&s;ons with the like demon&s;trations of duty and affection, the <HI>Antiochians</HI> did <HI>Meletius,</HI> when the &s;ame goodne&s;s of God &s;hall &s;ee fit to re&s;eat them in their Chairs, in their own Per&s;ons, or lawful Succe&s;&s;ion. In which Performances, if the Pa&s;tors and People &s;hould err, it will be done with great Examples, recommended as &s;uch to after Ages: and in good times of the Church.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="3" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. III.</HEAD>
<P>I Know Dr. <HI>Hody</HI> will come briskly here upon us, and &s;ay,<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>Cap.</HI> 17. <HI>pag.</HI> 187, 188. <HI>&amp;c.</HI></NOTE> <HI>that, Eu&s;tathius continu'd Bi&s;hop of</HI> Antioch, <HI>tho' he was locally di&s;po&s;&s;e&s;s'd by the Secular Arm, and the People of</HI> Antioch <HI>adher'd to, and recogniz'd him as &s;uch; but it was &s;o long as</HI> Arian <HI>Bi&s;hops were in his place; and becau&s;e there was not in effect any Bi&s;hop there, the</HI> Po&s;&s;e&s;&s;o<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">s <HI>being Hereticks: So &s;oon as</HI> (by the providence of God) the ble&s;&s;ed <HI>Meletius</HI> came thither (<HI>in the words of</HI> Chry&s;o&s;tome) <HI>who was Orthodox, and he was plac'd in</HI> Eu&s;tathius<HI>'s room, as Bi&s;hop;</HI> Eu&s;tathius <HI>never after concern'd him&s;elf with</HI> Antioch; <HI>and the &s;ame Orthodox party then as readily concurr'd and accepted</HI> Meletius, <HI>as be|fore they had</HI> Eu&s;tathius. So that the &s;ecular removal of an Or|thodox Bi&s;hop does not make way for a <HI>Succe&s;&s;or</HI> that is an <HI>Arian,</HI> or otherways Heretical; but it makes way for a <HI>Succe&s;&s;or</HI> that is <HI>Orthodox,</HI> and the Believers are to receive him.</P>
<P>Again, as to <HI>Meletius</HI>'s continuing al&s;o <HI>Bi&s;hop</HI> of <HI>Antioch</HI> under his pre&s;cription, and removal by the &s;ecular arm, and his being adher'd to in his exile and deprivation, and receiv'd upon his return, by the Orthodox, tho' <HI>Paulinus,</HI> who was no Heretick, had been po&s;&s;e&s;&s;or there during &s;ome time of his ab&s;ence, and was actual <HI>Po&s;&s;e&s;&s;or</HI> at his coming home: the <HI>Dr.</HI> thus an&s;wers.<NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg">Ibid.</NOTE> 1. <HI>That</HI> Paulinus <HI>was by &s;ome e&s;teem'd not Orthodox, but a</HI> Sabel|lian. 2dly. <HI>He did not allow the Ordinations of the</HI> Meletian <HI>Clergy; and that was enough to make them oppo&s;e him.</HI> 3dly. Lucifer Calari|tanus, <HI>who con&s;tituted him Bi&s;hop there, had nothing to do with the See of</HI> Antioch: <HI>What authority had he to constitute a Bi&s;hop at</HI> Antioch? <HI>Had</HI> Meletius <HI>been dead, the Church of</HI> Antioch <HI>would not have been oblig'd to &s;ubmit to</HI> Paulinus, <HI>whom he made Bi&s;hop. If an outlan|di&s;h Bi&s;hop, that had nothing at all to do here, &s;hould pretend to Con&s;e|crate an Archbi&s;hop of</HI> Canterbury, <HI>in the room of a bani&s;h'd Arch|bi&s;hop; who can imagine, that by the Principles which we advance, we &s;hould be oblig'd to receive him?</HI> 4ly. Meletius <HI>was not at that
<PB N="13" REF="25"> time in bani&s;hment, not made uncapable of &s;erving as a</HI> Bi&s;hop <HI>of</HI> An|tioch: <HI>he was &s;o far from being made uncapable by any Sovereign Power, that by the Emperor's authority he had leave given to return to his See; and was, as it were, upon the Road. And what is more divers than the Ca&s;e of the&s;e, and our pre&s;ent ejected Bi&s;hops? Is any one of their Succe&s;&s;ors an Heretick? Or their Ordainers? Or but under &s;u&s;pition of Heterodoxy? Or does any object again&s;t their Con&s;ecrati|ons? Did an outlandi&s;h authority place them in their Sees? Or were they under the Inhibition of the Secular Arm? Did they not enter on their Sees by the leave of a Sovereign Power? And are they not there actu|ally fix'd by it's Authority? And can they pretend a pre&s;ident in</HI> Antioch <HI>for their not communicating with them?</HI> The <HI>Doctor</HI> is very well a&s;&s;ur'd that they cannot: tho' I do not doubt but to make it ap|pear, that he has no true grounds for it; and I &s;hall to that pur|po&s;e an&s;wer him, as follows. And in the fir&s;t place.</P>
<P N="1">1. I do not pretend to found <HI>Meletius</HI>'s Title to the See of <HI>Antioch</HI> upon <HI>Eu&s;tathius</HI>'s fir&s;t depo&s;ition from the See of <HI>Seba&s;tia</HI> by his own Father <HI>Eulalius:</HI> or his &s;econd depo&s;ition, which is &s;aid to have been executed again&s;t him in a Synod at <HI>Gangre</HI> in <HI>Paphlagonia,</HI> upon Articles exhibited again&s;t him; of which we have an account in <HI>Socrates</HI>'s<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>L.</HI> 2. <HI>C.</HI> 32.</NOTE> and <HI>Sozomen</HI>'s<NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg">L. <HI>3.</HI> C. <HI>13.</HI> &amp; L. <HI>4.</HI> C. <HI>23.</HI></NOTE> Church-Hi&s;tories. This his Synodical Removal, if upon good evidence, may be ju&s;tly made u&s;e of to prove <HI>Meletius</HI>'s Title to the See of <HI>Seba&s;tia;</HI> the two foremention'd Hi&s;torians telling us,<NOTE N="&Verbar;" PLACE="marg">Socrat. l. <HI>2.</HI> c. <HI>32, 33.</HI> Soz. l. <HI>4</HI> c. <HI>24.</HI></NOTE> that he was next to <HI>Eu&s;tathius</HI> in that Chair: But I cannot &s;ee how it can ju&s;tifie his Title to the Church of <HI>Antioch,</HI> tho' he there al&s;o &s;ucceeded <HI>Eu|&s;tathius;</HI> for he did not come thither as Bi&s;hop of the place till many years after, but was fir&s;t made<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Socrat. c. <HI>33.</HI> ibid. ut Supra.</NOTE> Bi&s;hop of <HI>Baerea</HI> in <HI>Syria,</HI> where it &s;eems he likewi&s;e &s;ucceeded<NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg">Soz. l. <HI>1.</HI> c. <HI>2.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Eu&s;tathius.</HI> And be&s;ides, <HI>Sozomen</HI><NOTE N="&Verbar;" PLACE="marg">Ibid l. <HI>3.</HI> c. <HI>13.</HI></NOTE> &s;ays, <HI>That</HI> Eu&s;tathius <HI>did retract tho&s;e errors for which he was depos'd by the Synod.</HI> So that he might have a ju&s;t right to his Bi&s;hopricks of <HI>Baerea</HI> and <HI>Antioch,</HI> notwith&s;tanding his fir&s;t recidivation and cen&s;ure upon it: and what&s;oever his demerit and incapacity was before, we may be &s;ure that he had abundant|ly expiated, and remov'd it, ere he was admitted to either, or both of them, by a plenary repentance and &s;atisfaction. And tho' it was a ju&s;t ground, before his repentance and purgation, for his deprivation at <HI>Seba&s;tia;</HI> it was no bar, it could not be one, to his Titles to <HI>Baerea</HI> and <HI>Antioch;</HI> e&s;pecially &s;ince we find him after|wards &s;o far from lying under the Church cen&s;ure, or any in|capacity for the Work of a Bi&s;hop, that he was tran&s;lated from
<PB N="14" REF="26"> the See of <HI>Braerea</HI> to the See of <HI>Antioch,</HI><NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Theodor. l. <HI>1.</HI> c. <HI>7.</HI> Soz. l. <HI>1.</HI> c. <HI>2.</HI></NOTE> by the con&s;ent of all the Bi&s;hops, Presbyters, and People; and the unanimous Act of the fir&s;t Council of <HI>Nicaea,</HI> in which he eminently appear'd as a Member: and he is all along<NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg"><HI>Soz. l.</HI> 2. <HI>c.</HI> 17, 18.</NOTE> repre&s;ented to have been a &s;tiff oppo&s;er of the <HI>Arian,</HI> and mo&s;t zealous maintainer of the <HI>Homo<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">&s;ian</HI> Doctrine: He that de&s;ires his Character, may have it at large from St. <HI>Chry&s;o&s;tome,</HI><NOTE N="&Verbar;" PLACE="marg">Hom. de laude Eu&s;tathii.</NOTE> both as a Bi&s;hop and a Chri&s;ti|an; whom he calls a Martyr, tho' he died in his Bed:<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Non enim e|ventu &s;olo, &s;ed etiam voluntate Martyrii corona comparatur. Ibid.</NOTE> <HI>For the Crown of Martyrdom is not obtain'd by the event only, but by the will al&s;o.</HI> If <HI>Eu&s;tathius</HI> had been Synodically depos'd, and ju&s;tly; and continu'd by the Church under that inter|dict, and had been, whil&s;t under its cen&s;ure, ve&s;ted with the Primacy of <HI>Antioch,</HI> his title had been nominal only; and <HI>Mele|tius</HI> would have been the true Primate of that See, entring upon it upon tho&s;e Terms which the Church allows, tho' <HI>Eu&s;tathius</HI> had then been alive; but &s;ince, tho' once di&s;abled in a former See, he had been re&s;tor'd, and his cen&s;ure had been taken off, and he was plac'd in <HI>Antioch</HI> by Church-hands, and Laws; <HI>Meletius</HI> could have no right in that See, at the &s;ame time he was in it, by rea|&s;on of <HI>Eustathius</HI>'s depo&s;ition and cen&s;ure; but could be only a <HI>Second,</HI> in St. <HI>Cyprian</HI>'s &s;en&s;e, <HI>i. e.</HI> an <HI>intruder;</HI> or, which is the &s;ame thing, Dr. <HI>Hody</HI>'s <HI>Po&s;&s;e&s;&s;or</HI> only, in claiming a Right, and ex|erci&s;ing Epi&s;copal Juri&s;diction there. Again.</P>
<P N="2">2dly. Neither will I pretend to have <HI>Meletius</HI>'s rightful po&s;&s;e&s;|&s;ion of the <HI>Antiochian</HI> Chair to be founded in <HI>Eu&s;tathius</HI>'s death; tho' betwixt it and <HI>Meletius</HI>'s enthronization, no lawful Bi&s;hop had been plac'd there, at the time of that Solemnity; as tho&s;e, who plead it for <HI>Meletius</HI>'s legitimation, do a&s;&s;ert. For, tho' his death would have taken away the objection of two Bi&s;hops in the City, upon <HI>Meletius</HI>'s admi<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">tance, and obviated &s;o much illegality and guilt, as it would otherwi&s;e have contracted; and &s;ince <HI>Meletius</HI> was Orthodox, and admitted by tho&s;e other Rules, which the Church requires, (we'll &s;uppo&s;e, at lea&s;t, he was) nothing but <HI>Eu&s;tathius</HI>'s being alive at the time of his admittance could illegi|timate his Chair, and make it <HI>adulterous:</HI> Yet his death cannot be prov'd from authentick hands, or tho&s;e collections and infe|rences which will be demanded to make it good. And indeed <HI>Socrates</HI> and <HI>Sozomen</HI> are &s;o particular in their Narratives, where|in they repre&s;ent him to have been alive, at the time when <HI>Me|letius</HI> came to the <HI>Antiochian</HI> Chair, and are backt with &s;uch cor|roborating Authorities, and Circum&s;tances in Church Story, that
<PB N="15" REF="26"> it may not be denyed upon full thoughts and a ju&s;t con&s;ide|ration of them. As, that he was call'd from his Bani&s;hment by<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Socrat. lib. <HI>4.</HI> c. <HI>10.</HI> Soz. l. <HI>6.</HI> c. <HI>13.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Jovian,</HI> and was at <HI>Constantinople</HI> in the Reign of <HI>Valens,</HI> where he then Con&s;ecrated <HI>Evagrius</HI> Bi&s;hop of that City; The <HI>Homo&Taurus;&s;ians</HI> taking an opportunity to fill the Epi&s;copal Chair, upon the death of <HI>Eudoxius</HI> the <HI>Arian,</HI> who had u&s;urp'd it: and both <HI>Evagrius</HI> and <HI>Eustathius</HI> were afterwards bani&s;h'd for it by <HI>Valens,</HI> the latter into <HI>Bithinia</HI> in <HI>Thrace,</HI> and the former into another Forreign Region. But e&s;pecially (be&s;ides many other which the Doctor him&s;elf has collected, and we may &s;afely &s;tand by) in that St. <HI>Chri&s;ostome</HI> tells us, that he was living when <HI>Me|letius</HI> was made Bi&s;hop of <HI>Antioch;</HI> and exercis'd his Epi&s;copal Function in that di&s;trict, until his coming thither; who&s;e ac|count of it I have a little above recited. And the &s;ingle Au|thority of <HI>Theodorit</HI><NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg">H. E. l. <HI>3.</HI> c. <HI>4.</HI></NOTE> hath not weight enough to carry the Scale again&s;t all the&s;e; nor the rea&s;ons and conjectures which <HI>Baronius</HI><NOTE N="&Verbar;" PLACE="marg">ad, An. <HI>370.</HI> pag. <HI>244.</HI></NOTE> and <HI>Vale&s;ius</HI><NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Annot. ad l. <HI>4.</HI> H. E. Socr. c. <HI>14, 15.</HI></NOTE> thence take occa&s;ion to give for his being dead; Tho' they were great Men in their times, and Ob|&s;ervations: It being manife&s;t that they came &s;hort in this par|ticular.</P>
<P N="3">3ly. I cannot think either, That <HI>Eu&s;tathius's</HI> Depo&s;ition, which was made by the Council of <HI>Antioch,</HI> whil&s;t he was made Bi&s;hop of that See, of which we have an account in <HI>Socrates</HI><NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>l.</HI> 1. <HI>c.</HI> 18.</NOTE> and <HI>Sozomen</HI><NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg"><HI>l.</HI> 2. <HI>c.</HI> 18.</NOTE>, can make a ju&s;t plea for <HI>Meletius</HI> to that Chair, and Legitimate him as a Succe&s;&s;or there. For the Bi&s;hops in that Council, who were mo&s;tly <HI>Eu&s;ebians,</HI> condemn'd him, in truth, for his great and experienc'd zeal and performances again&s;t <HI>Aria+ni&s;m</HI><NOTE N="&Verbar;" PLACE="marg">Athan. Apol. p. <HI>702. 812.</HI> Hieron. in Chron.</NOTE> in the Council of <HI>Nicaea;</HI> tho' they did not implead him for it, (it being too early days,) but, partly as a <HI>Sabellian;</HI> (the <HI>Arians</HI> u&s;ually arraigning the <HI>Homo&Taurus;&s;ians</HI> as &s;uch, they frequently al&s;o call'd them<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Philo&s;torg. Epit. Hi&s;t. Eccl. Sandius Hi&s;tor. Enucleat.</NOTE> <HI>Photinians, Montani&s;ts,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>Athana&s;ius</HI> had his &s;hare of it) and the crime which they ultimately in&s;i&s;ted on, was his &s;uppos'd incontinency; but they had not competent evidence to make good their Accu&s;ation: And all the truly Orthodox Bi&s;hops in the Synod<NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg">Theod. H. E. l. <HI>1.</HI> c. <HI>22.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Prote&s;ted</HI> again&s;t their Pro|ceedings. Neither may we believe that <HI>Eustathius</HI> him&s;elf, who was &s;o great and eminent a man, in his life and death, being recorded as a Saint and Martyr, would have wrote, and conti|tinu'd him&s;elf Bi&s;hop of <HI>Antioch;</HI> That the <HI>Orthodox would have made &s;eparate Meetings,</HI> and Communicated under, and recogniz'd him as their lawful Bi&s;hop; That he would act as &s;uch&punc; and pre|&s;ide
<PB N="16" REF="27"> over them, tho' in Exile, until, by an agreement between them, and his Re&s;ignation, <HI>Meletius</HI> was rightfully placed in that See; That the <HI>Eastern</HI> Church &s;hould depute him, with two more Bi&s;hops, as their Legates to <HI>Liberius,</HI><NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><P>Soz. l. <HI>6.</HI> c. <HI>10, 11.</HI></P>
<P>Socrat. l. <HI>4.</HI> c. <HI>11.</HI></P></NOTE> to let him know, that they did then acknowledge, and always would unto death, the <HI>Nicene Faith;</HI> and the Doctrine of <HI>one Sub&s;tance;</HI> That he &s;hould be receiv'd as a Bi&s;hop of <HI>Chri&s;tendom,</HI> upon other &s;pecial occa&s;ions, as by the Orthodox at <HI>Con&s;tantinople,</HI> and be made u&s;e of by them for the<NOTE N="&Verbar;" PLACE="marg">Socr. l. <HI>4</HI> c. <HI>13.</HI></NOTE> Con&s;ecrating <HI>Evagrius,</HI> and advancement of the Catholick Doctrine; That the Orthodox at <HI>Antioch</HI> &s;hould all along be call'd <HI>Eu&s;tathians,</HI> by a Denomination from him: This (I &s;ay) cannot be believ'd, if he had all this while been legally abdicated, and remov'd upon the terms which the Church allows, and had liv'd and dyed under it's Cen&s;ure. As for tho&s;e that &s;ay there were two <HI>Eustathius's,</HI> the one of <HI>Sebastia,</HI> and the other of <HI>Antioch;</HI> and that he of <HI>Antioch</HI> was not the Legantine Bi&s;hop from the <HI>East,</HI> and did not con&s;ecrate <HI>Eva|grius</HI> at <HI>Con&s;tantinople,</HI> but he of <HI>Sebastia</HI> did both: I cannot be any ways affected with it, as to our pre&s;ent Argument; (tho' upon a thorough enquiry they may be found to be in a mi&s;take) &s;ince tho&s;e again&s;t whom I advance it, do contend but for one, which is he of <HI>Antioch,</HI> and that it was he who perform'd tho&s;e Offices. Be&s;ides, if <HI>Eustathius</HI> had been actually and truly depos'd, and the Orthodox had deem'd him to be, and remain &s;o, how came it to pa&s;s that they did not Elect another in his room, but let the See continue vacant till <HI>Meletius</HI> was en|thron'd, which was, at lea&s;t, thirty years after, during &s;ome part of which time it was fill'd with <HI>Arian</HI> Bi&s;hops, pro|fe&s;&s;edly &s;uch, and from the beginning with tho&s;e whom the <HI>Arian</HI> contagion had deeply infected, but it appear'd not &s;o publickly as afterwards? as we read in <HI>Theodorit</HI><NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg">l. c. <HI>22.</HI></NOTE> and I &s;hall make more plain anon. This is contrary to the Practice of the Church in tho&s;e times, which &s;till continu'd a Succe&s;&s;ion in oppo&s;ition to the <HI>Arians:</HI> And &s;ince &s;he did not do it here, we are to believe it was becau&s;e &s;he knew the See to be fill'd by <HI>Eustathius,</HI> till <HI>Meletius</HI> was made Bi&s;hop there: And con&s;e|quently did not look upon <HI>Eu&s;tathius</HI> Abdication to be made on true Church grounds and to be effectual.</P>
<P>If it be replied, how came it then to pa&s;s that <HI>Constantine</HI> did own and abet <HI>Eu&s;tathius</HI>'s Abdication with his &s;ecular Arm, and bani&s;h'd his per&s;on, (it may be believed) upon his non
<PB N="17" REF="27"> &s;ubmi&s;&s;ion to it? To this it may be replied, that upon a thorow inquiry into his behaviour in that whole affair concerning <HI>Arius,</HI> it will be found, that His Maje&s;ty, was litle better then a Trim|mer from the beginning, in his own Inclinations: And believed that the &s;en&s;e of the <HI>Homo<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">&s;ian</HI> Doctrine might be received without the Synods explication; But e&s;pecially without making it Law: though his piety directed him to receive, enfranchi&s;e, and &s;ubmit to it. And he might in his latter days (when this Scene, in which <HI>Eu&s;tathius</HI> had &s;o great a part, was acted) be over yeilding to the <HI>Eu&s;ebians,</HI> who carried it in the Synod, in which <HI>Eu&s;tathius</HI> was condemn'd, and there pretended to be Catholicks, but with a naughtier De&s;ign; <HI>Viz.</HI> That they might effectually overthrow the <HI>Nicene</HI> Doctrine by it. And if not at the &s;ame time, it was not long after, that the<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>L.</HI> 2. <HI>c.</HI> 32.</NOTE> <HI>Arian</HI> Presbi|ter had <HI>Con&s;tantine</HI>'s favor to a great degree: And fir&s;t prevail'd with him to recall <HI>Arius:</HI> With the &s;ame Arian Presbyter, 'tis a&s;&s;erted, that Emperor left his la&s;t Te&s;tament, and Enjoin'd him under Oath, to deliver it with his own Hand, to his Son <HI>Con|&s;tantius.</HI> And as this Presbyter had great advantages for the promoting his Religion, and it had &s;ucce&s;s accordingly under <HI>Con&s;tantius,</HI> &s;o we are not to que&s;tion, but that he in&s;inuated notions into <HI>Constantine,</HI> which he had not at fir&s;t received: Though the Actions of Princes, in &s;ome particulars, have alvays been unaccountable.</P>
<P N="4">4ly. But to come clo&s;er to the Doctors own Arguings: What he contends for, in the&s;e following words, may in part be granted him: <HI>Viz.</HI> <Q>That <HI>Eu&s;tathius</HI> and the Orthodox Party,<NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg"><HI>Pag.</HI> 188.</NOTE> did not own and receive the <HI>Second,</HI> or <HI>Succe&s;&s;ors,</HI> which were placed in the <HI>Antiochian</HI> See, upon his Bani&s;hment, until <HI>Meletius</HI> was Enthron'd who was Orthodox; Becau&s;e before his Admi&s;&s;ion, &s;uch <HI>Seconds</HI> were accounted <HI>Arians:</HI> But then <HI>Eu&s;tathius</HI> gave over, and never concern'd him&s;elf any more as Bi&s;hop of <HI>Antioch,</HI> being &s;ecur'd of an Orthodox <HI>Succe&s;&s;or.</HI></Q> But though we do grant that this was one rea&s;on, and at that time, their only rea&s;on, which they produced: yet might they not have &s;eparated, as they then did, and made their Conventions under other Bi&s;hops, whom they believed to be legal, and given &s;ome other account of it, which was ju&s;tifiable, upon tho&s;e terms which the Church &s;tands engag'd to accept? What if that Succe&s;&s;ion that was placed upon <HI>Eustathius</HI> was not <HI>Arian?</HI> And &s;ome<NOTE N="&Verbar;" PLACE="marg">Baron an. <HI>340.</HI></NOTE> contend it was not: Of which I am hereafter to give an account:
<PB N="18" REF="28"> (Suppo&s;ing what the Doctor and we at pre&s;ent allow, <HI>Viz.</HI> That <HI>Eu&s;tathius</HI> was not depo&s;ed under <HI>Con&s;tantius,</HI> but under <HI>Con|&s;tantine</HI> the Great, it will then be more then probable that it was not <HI>Arian</HI>) and what rea&s;on will the Doctor then leave for <HI>Eustathius,</HI> and the Orthodox People of <HI>Antioch</HI> to give (ad|mitting that he was duly depo&s;ed) why they renounced their Communion, and he govern'd, and they a&s;&s;embled under him in oppo&s;ition to that Succe&s;&s;ion? He mu&s;t conclude them to have been Schi&s;maticks in the doing of it: But then he will own, that there is another rea&s;on over and above that of Here&s;y, (e&s;pecially <HI>Ariani&s;m</HI>) which ju&s;tify's a &s;eparation. And &s;urely (be the Doctors Opinion what it will,) they might have done it, purely and &s;olely, becau&s;e that Succe&s;&s;ion was Schi&s;matical and brought in upon <HI>Eustathius</HI> whil&s;t he was alive, and ve&s;ted with the Government of the <HI>Antiochian</HI> See, upon Church terms: As the Doctor allows he was, till <HI>Meletius</HI> came thither; at which time, and not before, he &s;ays <HI>he gave over:</HI> But nothing is more &s;ure, than that the Principles and Practices of the Church of God would have borm then out in it, for that con&s;ideration; which have all along oppo&s;ed <HI>Novatiani&s;m</HI> in the &s;ame degree, and with the &s;ame zeal, they have oppo&s;ed <HI>Ariani&s;m:</HI> And the Characters of each, as of the Here&s;y, are &s;till found to be given by the Ancient Church, wit<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> the &s;ame dete&s;tation: And it is al&s;o mo&s;t manife&s;t, that the &s;ame Ancients have oppos'd <HI>Novatus,</HI> by rea&s;on of his Schi&s;m, and for that he brought in Bi&s;hops upon full Sees, which were not voyded by Church Laws, to the di|&s;turbance of the peace and quiet of the Church of God. And did not <HI>Arius</HI> do the &s;ame? Or, was he le&s;s a Schi&s;matick than <HI>Novatus,</HI> becau&s;e he was more an Heretick, and con&s;equently, le&s;s hateful, and to be avoyded for it? And I do not in the lea&s;t que&s;tion, but that <HI>Eu&s;tathius</HI> would no more have comply'd with <HI>Meletius</HI> upon his forcible and uncanonical coming to the See of <HI>Antioch,</HI> had he indeed come to it in &s;uch a manner, than he did with <HI>Sophronius</HI> and his Succe&s;&s;ion; &s;uppo&s;ing them to have been <HI>Arians:</HI> Or that even <HI>Meletius</HI> did account his Or|thodoxy, alone, &s;ufficient to vouth his Succe&s;&s;ion, without <HI>Eu|stathius</HI>'s leave, and Re&s;ignation. Both which I &s;hall fully make ap|pear by and by. Neither do we find, that the Church has been le&s;s careful to continue, and maintain, her Succe&s;&s;ion again&s;t <HI>Novatiani&s;m,</HI> than &s;he has been again&s;t <HI>Ariani&s;m.</HI> The Doctors rea&s;on may be good which he gives, why <HI>Eustathius</HI> and the
<PB N="19" REF="28"> Orthodox at <HI>Antioch</HI> did not &s;ubmit to that Succe&s;&s;ion, founded in <HI>Sophronius:</HI> (Who was the fir&s;t <HI>Eu&s;ebian</HI> Bi&s;hop that came in his Chair) but he makes a perver&s;e improvement of it, when he thence in&s;inuates, or rather directly infers, that the Schi&s;m alone of the <HI>Sophronians,</HI> had not been a ju&s;t ground of their &s;epara|tion from them: As though if they had not been <HI>Arians,</HI> the <HI>Eustathians</HI> wou'd have compli'd notwith&s;tanding <HI>Eu&s;tathius</HI> was invalidly depos'd, and at the &s;ame time a rightful Proprietor, but forcibly remov'd by <HI>Con&s;tantine,</HI> and illegally by the Synod, as they afterward did, when <HI>Meletius</HI> came into the See, with <HI>Eu&s;tathius</HI> his leave.</P>
<P>But this is the Doctors con&s;tant way of arguing: And he all a long prov's, with a great deal of weakne&s;s and fallacy; that becau&s;e the Empire hath by its own Authority, without a Synod, placed Bi&s;hops in full Sees, not voyded by the Church Laws, but only by its &s;ecular removal of the proper Bi&s;hops, and the Orthodox have refus'd to receive and &s;ubmit unto them, and given this rea&s;on for it, <HI>Viz.</HI> Becau&s;e they were <HI>Arians:</HI> There|fore (he wou'd infer) the&s;e Catholicks wou'd have received the &s;ame intruded Bi&s;hops or others, in the &s;ame Circum&s;tan|ces, if they had been Orthodox; and the Schi&s;m of the action, and their being <HI>Seconds</HI> in a full See upon an anteceding Church right, not ju&s;tly extingui&s;hed, would not have made a defen&s;ive plea, nor ju&s;tified their non Communion with them. But, might he not as well have argued, that, becau&s;e adultery is declared to be a &s;in, which will forfeit that mans &s;alvation who commits it, therefore, Perjury, Drunkenne&s;s, Witchcraft, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> are not &s;uch noxious &s;ins as Adultery is, becau&s;e they are not always upon the &s;ame occa&s;ion, and at the &s;ame time, declar'd to have the noxious effect, but pa&s;&s;ed over and not mention'd, becau&s;e the Judge thinks fit to arraign and condemn a Criminal as a Traytor, who at the &s;ame time, is known to him to be a Felon, Murderer, Sodomi&s;t, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> But he doth not think fit to arraign and condemn him for them, at that A&s;&s;ize, therefore the Criminal is not arraignable, nor lyable to be condemn'd upon tho&s;e &s;cores?<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>Cap.</HI> 5. <HI>Sect</HI> 4.</NOTE> The Docter him&s;elf tells us <HI>that</HI> Acacius <HI>Patriarch of</HI> Con&s;tanti|nople <HI>refu&s;ed to Communicate with</HI> Timothy Aelurus, <HI>not becau&s;e he was put into the place of</HI> Timothy Salofaciolus, <HI>unju&s;tly depo&s;ed by the Herretical U&s;urper</HI> Ba&s;ilicus, <HI>but becau&s;e he was an Heretick and a Paricide.</HI> Now, what if his Murther had not been men|tion'd there, as well as his Here&s;y? Why the Doctor, by the parity
<PB N="20" REF="29"> of Arguing, mu&s;t have concluded, that, not his Murther, but his Here&s;y only, had been a ju&s;t ground for <HI>Acacius's</HI> rejecting him. But then, he mu&s;t conclude likewi&s;e, that, as not Schi&s;m, &s;o, neither were Symony, Idolatry, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> ju&s;t ground for it, &s;ince they are not mentioned neither: And thus he that arraigns but one &s;in, at one, and the &s;ame time, as damning, mu&s;t be interpreted to acquit all the re&s;t, though of the &s;ame, or the like malignant Influence. And is not this pretty Arguing? But his Book is &s;tuff'd with the &s;ame or wor&s;e: And we have it heaps upon heaps throughout a great part of it. He ought to have prov'd, that a Bi&s;hops Schi&s;matical Po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion, upon a bare &s;ecular <HI>Deprivation,</HI> is not a ju&s;t plea for the Believers not Com|municating with him, as well as his Ariani&s;m; which he can no more do, than he can prove; becau&s;e Ariani&s;m is a mo&s;t wicked Here&s;y, therefore Schi&s;m brings no guilt with it. But in that he proves the Schi&s;matical po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion, not to be a ju&s;t Plea, becau&s;e there are more ju&s;t Pleas, and but one of them is, upon a &s;pecial occa&s;ion, produced as a ju&s;t one, when that of Schi&s;m is not mention'd together with it; this argues only the Doctors ra&s;h head, and unthinking Complexion. When a Criminal is brought to the Bar, who is guilty of many Offences that are Capital, the Judg's prudence will direct him to &s;ingle out one of them, again&s;t which the Evidence is mo&s;t full, and when it's pu|ni&s;hment will be more exemplary, and conduce, at lea&s;t, under the pre&s;ent circum&s;tances, in a greater mea&s;ure to the common good: And we may ea&s;ily think, that the &s;ame Prudence did direct our Orthodox Believers, in a proportionable degree, to in&s;i&s;t upon the <HI>Second</HI>'s <HI>Ariani&s;m,</HI> (admitting that they did in&s;i&s;t only upon it, which is not prov'd) as the rea&s;on why they refus'd to Communicate with him, it being a &s;in which did then, when the Doctor produces the&s;e in&s;tances and rea&s;ons of it, as vi&s;ibly appear as the Sun at Noon day, to the no le&s;s manife&s;t de&s;truction of the Church, by its Heterodoxy in Faith, and ill effects upon manners, being fill'd with Sacriledge, Rapine, and all &s;orts of Inju&s;tice, which &s;wallow'd up the Schi&s;m, and Church U&s;urpation. And though the Schi&s;m had been a competent Plea in its &s;elf (and the Catholick Church did at that time no more &s;ubmit to <HI>Novatiani&s;m</HI> than to <HI>Ariani&s;m</HI>) yet the <HI>Ariani&s;m</HI> might be thought a more &s;ea&s;onable Plea, (<HI>Novatiani&s;m</HI> being then Indulg'd by the Empire and made Law, and its abetters, in &s;ome other re&s;pects, had gain'd a tolerable reputation with
<PB N="21" REF="29"> the Catholicks) as like to prove a better, and more effectual ad|vocate for them: and if any that profe&s;s'd to be Orthodox have clo&s;ed with, and &s;ubmitted to the Schi&s;m, when not complicated with the Here&s;ie, the Doctor mu&s;t prove that they did it upon Principles and Con&s;cience, otherwi&s;e his telling of Stories (of which he has abundance) will prove nothing.</P>
<P N="5">5. As to that which the Doctor &s;ays, <HI>viz. That</HI> Meletius<HI>'s Orthodoxy, was it which gave him a rightful Title upon his Po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion; and accordingly,</HI> Eu&s;tathius <HI>and the Orthodox at</HI> Antioch <HI>received him as their lawful Bi&s;hop, &s;o &s;oon as they were &s;ecured of it.</HI> I &s;hall &s;hew: That as <HI>Meletius</HI>'s <HI>Ariani&s;m,</HI> during his Profe&s;&s;ion of which he was Con&s;ecrated<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Soz l. <HI>4.</HI> c. <HI>27.</HI> Baron. an. <HI>360.</HI> num. <HI>44.45.</HI></NOTE> Bi&s;hop of <HI>Antioch,</HI> would have been a compe|tent and undeniable bar to his own rightful Po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion of that Chair, if he had not contrary to the expectation of <HI>Eudoxius</HI> and others, who promoted him as an <HI>Arian</HI> into it, retracted that Here&s;ie, and profe&s;&s;ed him&s;elf a Catholick; and neither <HI>Eu&s;ta|thius</HI>'s depo&s;ition, re&s;ignation, or death would have removed that bar: So that it was not his Orthodoxy alone, and po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion, which made him the legitimate Pa&s;tor there, till <HI>Eu&s;tathius</HI> gave way unto him, and upon compo&s;ition, re&s;igned his Right into his hands: but without it, he would have been no better than St. <HI>Cyprian</HI>'s <HI>Second:</HI> i. e. he would have been a Schi&s;matick, and not a lawful Bi&s;hop there, &s;o long as <HI>Eu&s;tathius</HI> continued alive, and a Synod did not remove him, upon terms which the Church allows. And this will be readily done, in parts, from the ac|count of <HI>Eustathius</HI>'s relinqui&s;hing that See, and <HI>Meletius</HI>'s receiving of it, which the Doctor has given us out of St. <HI>Chry&s;o&s;tome,</HI> and I have recited from his Tran&s;cript, a little above, in this Secti|on: Where it is mo&s;t evident, that <HI>Eu&s;tathius</HI> continued to in&s;pect and govern the Orthodox in <HI>Antioch,</HI> and they their dependance on him, as their Bi&s;hop, until <HI>Meletius</HI> came thither; that <HI>Eu&s;ta|thius</HI> did not own <HI>Meletius</HI> as the Bi&s;hop of <HI>Antioch,</HI> till it plea&s;ed God to bring him off from his <HI>Ariani&s;m</HI> [<GAP DESC="foreign">] and he became a Catholick; that his Orthodoxy alone, and Po&s;|&s;e&s;&s;ion (which the <HI>Arians</HI> gave him) did not create his full and ju&s;t right, until <HI>Eu&s;tathius</HI> de&s;i&s;ted, and gave up his jurisdiction to him [<GAP DESC="foreign">] by re&s;ignation; and he then, and not be|fore, became the lawful and compleat Pa&s;tor of <HI>Antioch,</HI> [<GAP DESC="foreign">] and received the whole Ma&s;s, and reaped; and the Flock, which before was <HI>Eustathius</HI>'s, became <HI>Meletius</HI>'s Fold and People. And all this
<PB N="22" REF="30"> is very well con&s;i&s;tent with that which the Doctor<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>P.</HI> 188.</NOTE> tells us is ob&s;erv'd by <HI>Photius,</HI> Patriarch of <HI>Con&s;tantinople,</HI> which is in a Trea|ti&s;e not yet publi&s;h'd, but to be met with in the <HI>Oxford</HI> Library:<NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg">B. M. S. Baro.</NOTE> as <HI>that</HI> Meletius <HI>being advanced to</HI> Eu&s;tathius<HI>'s Throne, when he was bani&s;h'd for his Piety, and &s;till living, prov'd no pre|judice to him: but becau&s;e he was Orthodox, he was readily receiv'd by the Church:</HI> For though it was in con&s;ideration of <HI>Meletius</HI>'s Orthodoxy that <HI>Eu&s;tathius</HI> re&s;ign'd to him; <HI>Photius</HI> does not &s;ay, that his Orthodoxy alone gave him a title to the See, and that it was in it &s;elf, though accompanied with Schi&s;m, competent to do it; and <HI>Eu&s;tathius</HI>'s re&s;ignation was not requir'd in order to it. The Doctor wonders, that neither <HI>Baronius,</HI> nor <HI>Vale&s;ius</HI> (he might have added, nor the <HI>vindicator</HI>) ob&s;erv'd this pa&s;&s;age in <HI>Chry&s;ostome,</HI> and &s;o do I: and much more that <HI>Baronius</HI> mi&s;s'd it; &s;ince he has given us &s;ome account of <HI>Meletius,</HI> out of St. <HI>Chry&s;o|&s;tom</HI>'s <HI>Homily, de &s;ancto Meletio Antiocheno;</HI> and that his indu&s;try did not lead him a little further, to the <HI>Homily de &s;ancto Eu&s;tachio Antiocheno,</HI> where the above-mentioned Narrative is to be found: the two being &s;till placed not far from one another in tho&s;e Edi|tions of <HI>Chry&s;o&s;tome,</HI> which I have met with. And I cannot but wonder that the Doctor &s;hould commit a greater over&s;ight, and be &s;o incon&s;iderate as to &s;ay;<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>P.</HI> 191.</NOTE> <HI>That the Orthodox Party very readily concurr'd and accepted</HI> Meletius, <HI>being an Orthodox Bi&s;hop, though it does not appear, that they knew that</HI> Eu&s;tathius <HI>would give his con|&s;ent;</HI> for, how can he think that they were, or could be, igno|rant of it: &s;ince their own eyes and ears were their evidences for it: did not their own Bi&s;hop <HI>Eu&s;tathius,</HI> who all along before, from the time of his bani&s;hment, had <HI>applied him&s;elf to take care of them, and called them together, and exhorted them not to yield to Wolves, or betray the Flock to 'em, when they invaded the Sheep, he did not leave 'em:</HI> (in the words of the Doctors own tran&s;lation of <HI>Chry&s;o&s;tome</HI>) did not <HI>Eu&s;tathius</HI> (I &s;ay then <HI>vi&s;ibly</HI> de&s;i&s;t to take the &s;ame care of them any longer, and (for I cannot tell how to expre&s;s it otherwi&s;e) <HI>re&s;ign</HI> his Right and Juri&s;diction to him, when by the <HI>providence of God the ble&s;&s;ed</HI> Meletius <HI>came thither?</HI> Nor can we think that <HI>Meletius</HI> did not receive <HI>Eu&s;tathius</HI>'s re&s;igna|tion in the &s;ame <HI>vi&s;ible</HI> manner; unle&s;s we can &s;uppo&s;e the&s;e Or|thodox Believers of <HI>Antioch,</HI> who had &s;o firmly and con&s;cienti|ou&s;ly adher'd to <HI>Eu&s;tathius,</HI> under his &s;tate of abdication, would not once ask him the rea&s;on why he de&s;i&s;ted; but arbitrarily de&s;ert him at the la&s;t; that they &s;hould &s;atisfie their con&s;ciences
<PB N="23" REF="30"> in doing of it; or, that <HI>Eustathius</HI> &s;hould not give them his rea&s;ons for it; or, in the la&s;t place, that <HI>Meletius,</HI> who was at that time brought off, by the goodne&s;s of God, from <HI>Ariani&s;m,</HI> &s;hould remain &s;o great a Novice in the Catholick Polity, as to be ignorant (I &s;hall &s;hew you by and by, that he was not igno|rant) that his Orthodoxy alone was &s;ufficient to legitimate his po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion, whil&s;t <HI>Ea&s;tathius</HI> was alive, without his con&s;ent and re&s;ignation? <HI>Eu&s;tathius</HI>'s bare de&s;i&s;ting ought to &s;atisfie the Do|ctor that he did re&s;ign: if he be not a meer <HI>Sceptick,</HI><NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>P.</HI> 7.</NOTE> who con|tends only for a pre&s;ent Argument; &s;ince he tells us; that <HI>in rea&s;on we ought to pre&s;ume, that our ejected Bi&s;hops did give their con|&s;ent that their Succe&s;&s;ors &s;hould be acknowledged, becau&s;e,</HI> (&s;ince their ejectment, he mu&s;t be &s;uppo&s;ed to mean) <HI>they have never, by any publick &s;ignification of their will, laid claim to the obedience of their People, and do not now exerci&s;e their Epi&s;copal Juri&s;diction, as before.</HI> It is true, <HI>Eu&s;tathius</HI> did act as a Bi&s;hop after his re&s;ignation: but it was not as Bi&s;hop of <HI>Antioch;</HI> neither did he lay claim to the obedience of that people any more than to another: but he acted as a Bi&s;hop of the whole World: <HI>De quavis in toto orbe Con|&s;tituta Eccle&s;ia,</HI> as St. <HI>Chry&s;o&s;tome</HI><NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg">Homil. de Sancto Eu&s;tath. Antioch. Ed. Pa|ri&s;. Lat.</NOTE> &s;peaks; (of which Epi&s;copal Right, I am to &s;peak more anon,) who tells us; that he took care of the Chri&s;tians in <HI>Con&s;tantinople,</HI> under the <HI>Arian</HI> Per&s;ecution, being recall'd from bani&s;hment by <HI>Jovian,</HI> and continuing in that City: at which time he al&s;o, ordain'd <HI>Evagrius</HI> Bi&s;hop there, and they both were bani&s;h'd for it by <HI>Valens,</HI> as we read in <HI>Socrates,</HI><NOTE N="&Verbar;" PLACE="marg">H.E. l. <HI>4.</HI> c. <HI>13.</HI></NOTE> and po&s;&s;ibly he might perform an Emba&s;&s;y to <HI>Liberius,</HI> from the <HI>Ea&s;tern</HI> Church, if that was not another <HI>Eu&s;tathius,</HI> as <HI>Baronius,</HI> thinks he was, who perform'd it. But if the Doctor will &s;tand by his own Argument no longer than it &s;erves his turn, and re|ject what is here produced as an incompetent proof of a re&s;ig|nation; and at this day require <HI>Eu&s;tathius, Meletius,</HI> and their <HI>Antiochians</HI> Original Contract, with their Hands and Seals to it; I do own that I am unable to do it: and I am &s;o much the le&s;s concern'd for it, becau&s;e I am not in <HI>Westmin&s;ter</HI> Hall, but in the Church, where &s;uch proof is not required.</P>
<P>Be&s;ides how can any man think that the Catholicks in <HI>Antioch</HI> who adher'd to <HI>Eu&s;tathius,</HI> notwith&s;tanding that a Council there had depos'd him, they believing his depo&s;ition to be unju&s;t and null; and form'd them&s;elves into a Party upon it, and were call'd <HI>Eustathians,</HI> in oppo&s;ition to <HI>Sophronius,</HI> who was placed in <HI>Eu&s;tathius</HI>'s Chair, and lookt upon by them as a <HI>Second,</HI> and in|truder:
<PB N="24" REF="31"> and continued their &s;eparation from him all along in his &s;ucce&s;&s;ion, only becau&s;e he was a <HI>Second,</HI> and po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ed a See, to which he had no right; for the <HI>Eu&s;ebians</HI> then profe&s;&s;ed the <HI>Doctrine</HI> of the Eternal Generation, as in the <HI>Nicene</HI> Creed, as I &s;hall make it appear<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>Cap.</HI> 3. S. 2.</NOTE> anon; &s;o that the <HI>Eustathians</HI> could not plead their <HI>Ariani&s;m,</HI> as the rea&s;on of their &s;eparation; tho' it is ten to one but Doctor <HI>Hody</HI> will &s;ay they did: can we (I &s;ay) think, that the&s;e &s;ame <HI>Eu&s;tathians</HI> would have received <HI>Meletius</HI> into the Chair of <HI>Antioch,</HI> and paid him their duty, as their lawful Bi&s;hop, which all men, even the Doctor owns they did, <HI>Eu|&s;tathius</HI> being then alive, and filling that See, with the &s;ame ju&s;tice he had filled it, from the time of his enthroning; if he had not re&s;ign'd it, and quitted his right to <HI>Meletius,</HI> and there|by made way for their admi&s;&s;ion and acknowledgment of him, upon Church terms? We cannot think it: For what el&s;e could <HI>Meletius</HI> be otherwi&s;e but a <HI>Second</HI> in <HI>Antioch,</HI> as <HI>Sophronius</HI> was? Which way could he come into the <HI>Antiochian</HI> di&s;trict, but by the &s;ame injury, which the <HI>Sophronian</HI> Succe&s;&s;ion had before done to <HI>Eu&s;tathius</HI>'s right and per&s;on? How infamous mu&s;t the&s;e <HI>Eu&s;ta|thians</HI> be, upon their entertaining <HI>Meletius,</HI> who filled the See with the &s;ame inju&s;tice <HI>Sophronius</HI> did? But they embrac'd the one, and &s;eparated from the other, they may not be thought to have done it, without <HI>Eu&s;tathius</HI> his con&s;ent, and voidance of the Chair, &s;ome way or other, if not by a formal re&s;ignation, openly made known unto them; e&s;pecially if we con&s;ider their practice a little after; whom we find to adhere to <HI>Meletius,</HI> upon a principle of right, when he had been a long while for|cibly ab&s;ent, and <HI>Paulinus</HI> was brought into his See, without his con&s;ent, and regular relinqui&s;hment of it; though <HI>Paulinus</HI> was not thought to be an <HI>Arian:</HI> they did not believe his Orthodoxy to be &s;ufficient to ju&s;tifie his coming into a full See, and unlaw|ful Po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion, any more than they believed <HI>Meletius</HI>'s po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion in oppo&s;ition to <HI>Eu&s;tatbius,</HI> or the <HI>Sophronians,</HI> in oppo&s;ition to both of them, was their warrant for it.</P>
<P>I will here add; that this generous and mo&s;t Chri&s;tian action of <HI>Eu&s;tathius</HI> &s;eems to have been, in &s;ome mea&s;ure, a pre&s;ident to that propo&s;al which<NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg">Ep. ad Mar|cel. apud Augu&s;t. l. de ge&s;tis cum Emerito do|nati&s;t.</NOTE> St. <HI>Au&s;tin</HI> and the <HI>African</HI> Bi&s;hops made in the days of <HI>Honorius;</HI> who, upon the growth of <HI>Donati&s;m,</HI> and after many attempts and conferences for the adju&s;ting the diffe|rences ari&s;ing upon it, betwixt the <HI>Donati&s;ts</HI> and Catholicks, ten|der'd this offer, <HI>viz.</HI> that if upon a ju&s;t &s;tating of their re&s;pective
<PB N="33" REF="31"> rights, the lawful title &s;hould appear to be with the <HI>Donat<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="3 letters"></HI> would re&s;ign their Bi&s;hopricks to them. And the di&s;tre&s;i<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters"> <HI>Greek</HI> Patriarchs &s;eem to have imitated them both; in that they have &s;ometimes re&s;ign'd their Patriarchies to tho&s;e Bi&s;hops o<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> their own Faith, whom their hard Ma&s;ters thought fit to nomi|nate, lea&s;t their Religion and its Orders &s;hould be wholly &s;up|pre&s;&s;ed, upon their refu&s;al, or le&s;s protected. Did not this great Bi&s;hop of <HI>Antioch, Eu&s;tathius,</HI> act much after the &s;ame manner before them? Did he not fir&s;t quit, <GAP DESC="foreign"> (in St. <HI>Chry&s;o&s;tome,</HI> as above cited) the Honours of a Governor, when he retain'd the Epi&s;copal Office, and the cares of it, whil&s;t his People were among Wolves, and in the hands of <HI>Arian</HI> Suc|ce&s;&s;ors, and afterwards relinqui&s;h his right al&s;o to the Orthodox <HI>Meletius;</HI> him&s;elf being then in exile, and le&s;s capable to &s;erve that People than <HI>Meletius</HI> was? Tho' <HI>Meletius</HI> did not long en|joy that liberty which he then po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ed. And &s;urely, he is not a truly Chri&s;tian Bi&s;hop that will refu&s;e to do the &s;ame, under the &s;ame, or the like circum&s;tances; but refu&s;es to re&s;ign, though the Church may enjoy thereby tho&s;e advantages, which it can|not have, if he does not: though it be otherwi&s;e in danger of ruine: neither on the other &s;ide is he a truly Chri&s;tian Bi&s;hop, who quits his Rights and Government, into the hands of its ene|mies, when they are either <HI>Schi&s;maticks</HI> or <HI>Arians:</HI> which was the ca&s;e of <HI>Eu&s;tathius,</HI> who upon that con&s;ideration refu&s;ed for &s;ome time to do it: or when they are purely ob&s;tinate Schi&s;|maticks, which was the ca&s;e of St. <HI>Au&s;tin,</HI> and the <HI>African</HI> Bi|&s;hops; and it was upon that account they did not re&s;ign: but of this by the way: to return then where we left off: In the next place.</P>
<P N="6">6ly. <HI>Meletius</HI> will be found a farther full and pregnant in&s;tance, that the Church in tho&s;e days, did not allow Orthodoxy, and po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion upon it, to make a pa&s;&s;able title, whil&s;t the Predece&s;|&s;or was alive, and not duly remov'd; &s;ince we have not only prov'd <HI>Meletius</HI> to have received a re&s;ignation from <HI>Eu&s;tathius,</HI> e're his title could be ju&s;t and compleat to the See of <HI>Antioch;</HI> but we farther know him not to have own'd <HI>Paulinus</HI>'s title to the &s;ame See, though he was Orthodox, and in po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion of it, and him&s;elf, the fir&s;t and proper Bi&s;hop, was, at the &s;ame time, per|&s;onally abdicated; being remov'd by exile from it: but when he return'd, by the favour of the Empire, and found <HI>Paulinus</HI> in his Chair, who had been &s;eated there by <HI>Lucifer Calaritanus,</HI> he de|clar'd him&s;elf to be Bi&s;hop of that place notwith&s;tanding: and
<PB N="34" REF="32"> received his Congregation, which con&s;i&s;ted of tho&s;e Believers<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><P>Socrat. l. <HI>3.</HI> c. <HI>11.</HI></P>
<P>Soz. l. <HI>5.</HI> c. <HI>11, 12.</HI></P></NOTE> that had adhered to him, and di&s;own'd <HI>Paulinus,</HI> as well as <HI>Euzoius:</HI> which latter was the <HI>Arian</HI> Bi&s;hop, (who had been in <HI>Antioch</HI> from the time of <HI>Meletius</HI>'s ab&s;ence, and &s;et up, in oppo|&s;ition to them both) tho' <HI>Meletius</HI> was forced to officiate with them in the Suburbs only, when <HI>Paulinus</HI> was permitted to have his Altar in the City, by that favour which was denied <HI>Meletius</HI> by <HI>Euzoius.</HI> And we are hence to ob&s;erve, which will corroborate what we have ju&s;t now offer'd in proof of <HI>Eu&s;tathius</HI>'s re&s;ignation,</P>
<P><HI>Fir&s;t,</HI> That <HI>Meletius</HI> who&s;e Character is &s;o great in the Church for Orthodoxy and Integrity, cannot be thought to have in|&s;i&s;ted on his Orthodoxy alone, upon his po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion as a ju&s;t qua|lification, and competent title to the See of <HI>Antioch,</HI> without <HI>Eustathius</HI>'s re&s;ignation; &s;ince he did not allow of <HI>Paulinus</HI>'s claim to the &s;ame, upon &s;uch terms: for <HI>Paulinus</HI> was an <HI>Eustathian</HI> (which &s;ect was entirely Orthodox) and in po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion, as <HI>Eu|&s;tathius</HI> had been before him; we have &s;hew'd it to be highly pro|bable, that <HI>Eu&s;tathius</HI> re&s;ign'd, otherwi&s;e the <HI>Eu&s;tathians</HI> would not have de&s;erted him, and accepted <HI>Meletius</HI> for their Bi&s;hop: which is further prov'd by little le&s;s than a demon&s;tration, &s;ince none may think, that <HI>Meletius</HI> would have oppos'd <HI>Paulinus</HI> as a po&s;&s;e&s;&s;or without right, when at the &s;ame time, him&s;elf had been no better than a bare po&s;&s;e&s;&s;or in the See of <HI>Antioch,</HI> with equal injury to <HI>Eustathius,</HI> as he pretended <HI>Paulinus</HI> was to him; unle&s;s <HI>Eu&s;tathius</HI> had re&s;ign'd unto him: if <HI>Paulinus</HI>'s title was not good again&s;t <HI>Meletius; Meletius</HI>'s title was not good again&s;t <HI>Eu&s;tathius,</HI> except upon <HI>Eu&s;tathius</HI>'s re&s;ignation, or his voluntary voidance of his right in <HI>Antioch,</HI> by &s;ome way which was equiva|lent to it.</P>
<P N="2">2dly. That it is no new thing for a holy and religious Bi&s;hop to &s;ummon his people, and convene with them, in the wor&s;hip of God, though it be in &s;ome remote and ob&s;cure place, when he is overpower'd by Schi&s;maticks and Hereticks, and they &s;hut up again&s;t him, tho&s;e Hou&s;es of God, that are a&s;&s;ign'd in his City, and Di&s;trict, for that purpo&s;e, as <HI>Euzoius</HI> the <HI>Arian,</HI> and <HI>Paulinus</HI> the Schi&s;matick, did then upon <HI>Meletius.</HI></P>
<P N="3">3dly. That <HI>Meletius</HI> and his Catholicks, did &s;eparate, and keep their wor&s;hip apart, in re&s;pect to <HI>Euzoius</HI> and <HI>Paulinus</HI> alike, and as the Here&s;ie and Schi&s;m of the former (for the <HI>Arians</HI> were not only Hereticks but Schi&s;maticks) &s;o the Schi&s;m alone of the latter, was adjudg'd by him as a ju&s;t cau&s;e, and &s;ufficient war|rant
<PB N="35" REF="32"> for his doing of it: St. <HI>Cyprian</HI>'s <HI>Second,</HI> or a Bi&s;hop that is an illegal <HI>Succe&s;&s;or,</HI> and a Bi&s;hop that is an Heretical Succe&s;&s;or, are both to be &s;hunn'd: and we &s;tand engag'd not to acknow|ledge, nor to communicate in &s;ubordination to the one, as mu<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">h as to the other: the true Catholick Succe&s;&s;ion was then pre&s;e<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">v'd and continued, in oppo&s;ition to both the <HI>Arian</HI> and <HI>Novatian</HI> Suc|ce&s;&s;ion: and will be contradi&s;tinct to Here&s;ie and Schi&s;m, to the World's end: tho' it may be le&s;s pompous and vi&s;ible, many times; and in a corner.</P>
<P>I know, that <HI>Baronius</HI> contends for <HI>Paulinus</HI> as a legitimate Bi&s;hop, upon every occa&s;ion in his <HI>Annals:</HI> and for the putting it out of all doubt that he was &s;uch, he tells us that <HI>Lucifer Ca|laritanus</HI> did con&s;titute him Bi&s;hop of <HI>Antioch,</HI> as the Pope's Le|gate: but he &s;ays it in the <HI>Index</HI> of his fourth <HI>Tome,</HI> which refers us to <HI>pag.</HI> 176. where he has not one word of it, nor doth he at|tempt to prove it any where el&s;e: neither is he &s;ingular herein; it being the u&s;ual precarious way of the <HI>Romi&s;h</HI> Doctors, to place their Pope in the head, and repre&s;ent him as the <HI>primum Mobile</HI> of every action that &s;eems con&s;iderable: and we will grant the great and excellent <HI>Annali&s;t,</HI> that the Bi&s;hop of <HI>Rome</HI> did receive <HI>Paulinus</HI> as a Bi&s;hop of <HI>Antioch,</HI> as al&s;o the Council of <HI>Alexandria,</HI> according to the account which <HI>Athana&s;ius</HI> gives of it, in his <HI>Syno|dical Epi&s;tle ad Antiochenos;</HI> which Epi&s;tle he hath recited at large, and truly in his <HI>Annals:</HI><NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>An.</HI> 362.</NOTE> where it al&s;o appears, that <HI>Athana&s;ius</HI> and <HI>Eu&s;ebius Vercellen&s;is</HI> did the &s;ame: the former<NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg">Eph. ad An|tiochen&s;es.</NOTE> exhorts the <HI>Antiochians</HI> to unity with <HI>Paulinus,</HI> as their Bi&s;hop: but <HI>Sozomen</HI><NOTE N="&Verbar;" PLACE="marg"><HI>L.</HI> 5. <HI>c.</HI> 11.</NOTE> tells us, that <HI>Meletius</HI> was not then return'd from his exile: (which is omitted by<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>L.</HI> 2. <HI>c.</HI> 7.</NOTE> <HI>Socrates</HI>) and &s;ince <HI>Baronius</HI> has not prov'd the contrary, nor that the Synod of <HI>Alexandria</HI> knew that he was alive, at the time of its then &s;itting; upon who&s;e cre|dit, he &s;ays the <HI>Pope</HI> received <HI>Paulinus,</HI> but by no means upon his Election by <HI>Lucifer,</HI> a Schi&s;matick Bi&s;hop, (though at another time he &s;ays <HI>Lucifer</HI> acted therein as the <HI>Pope</HI>'s Legate) <HI>Meletius</HI>'s title will not be ere the wor&s;e, but his ca&s;e will be found to be the &s;<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">me with <HI>Narci&s;&s;us,</HI> in <HI>Eu&s;ebius</HI><NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg">H.E l. <HI>6.</HI> c. <HI>9.</HI></NOTE>; upon who&s;e long ab&s;ence, and no communication with them, they &s;uppo&s;ing him to be dead, the Neighbour Bi&s;hops ordain'd three Succe&s;&s;ors into his See, but after all, received him upon his <HI>po&s;tliminium,</HI> or return, in the &s;ame capacity, he went out from them: And the pre&s;ent Succe&s;&s;or gave way to him, as <HI>Paulinus</HI> and the other <HI>We&s;tern</HI> Bi&s;hops ought to have done to <HI>Meletius;</HI> and we have this great circum&s;tance
<PB N="36" REF="33"> to per&s;wade us to think, that the Bi&s;hops of the Synod of <HI>Alex|andria</HI> and they of the <HI>West,</HI> might ea&s;ily think, that <HI>Meletius</HI> was not then alive, to challenge his right; &s;ince he did not return upon <HI>Julian</HI>'s Edict, which (we know) gave him, and all the exil'd Bi&s;hops, liberty to do it, and to come home; but continued in his bani&s;hment and ob&s;curi<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">y, till the days<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Baron. an. <HI>862.</HI> p. <HI>88.</HI></NOTE> of <HI>Valens.</HI> And this will be the more confirm'd, &s;ince St. <HI>Ba&s;il</HI> is expre&s;s in his <HI>Epi&s;tle ad Terentium,</HI> cited by<NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg"><HI>An.</HI> 3. 72. <HI>q.</HI> 327.</NOTE> <HI>Baronius,</HI> that the <HI>Western</HI> Bi&s;hops were, many of them, ignorant of the affairs of the <HI>Ea&s;t,</HI> when they rejected <HI>Meletius,</HI> and communicated under <HI>Paulinus;</HI> and tho&s;e that knew them better, related them contentiou&s;ly, and not according to the truth: and it may not be unlikely, but that <HI>Eu|&s;ebius Samo&s;aten&s;is</HI> was di&s;&s;atisfied upon <HI>Paulinus</HI>'s election, for the &s;ame rea&s;on, and refu&s;ed<NOTE N="&Verbar;" PLACE="marg">S<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">z. l. <HI>5.</HI> c. <HI>12.</HI> S<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">crat. l. <HI>2.</HI> c. <HI>7.</HI></NOTE> to communicate with him: if it be demanded, how <HI>Meletius</HI>'s People at <HI>Antioch,</HI> which con&s;tantly adhered to, and communicated with him, during his ab&s;ence, knew that he was alive, any more than the <HI>We&s;tern</HI> Bi&s;hops did? I an&s;wer, that as we have no rea&s;on to &s;u&s;pect it, &s;o we have ju&s;t rea&s;on to believe that they had a con&s;tant information of his being alive, by Letters or &s;ome other way: e&s;pecially, &s;ince we have ju&s;t grounds, from St. <HI>Chry&s;o&s;tome,</HI> to believe, that they had corre&s;pondence from <HI>Thrace,</HI> whether <HI>Meletius</HI> was exil'd: and, indeed if they had not done it, they could not have acquit|ted them&s;elves of Schi&s;m, in making &s;uch their di&s;tinct wor&s;hip; <HI>Paulinus</HI> being otherwi&s;e unexceptionable, &s;ave only that he po&s;|&s;e&s;&s;ed a See, to which another Bi&s;hop had a ju&s;t right, being then alive, only in bani&s;hment by the &s;ecular Arm. But Doctor <HI>Hody</HI> does not &s;eem to have con&s;ider'd any of the&s;e things; nor to be concern'd which way they go: believing him&s;elf abundantly &s;ecur'd, that it makes nothing again&s;t <HI>Paulinus</HI>'s title, as a <HI>Po&s;&s;e&s;&s;or,</HI> though <HI>Meletius</HI> was alive together with him, and not rightfully remov'd, upon Church Terms; and his Party did not receive <HI>Paulinus,</HI> but waited for <HI>Meletius</HI>'s return, and adher'd to him in his ab&s;ence: nor that any thing like an argument is thereby ad|mini&s;tred on our &s;ide; &s;ince they refu&s;ed <HI>Paulinus</HI> for other rea|&s;ons, which he has produced, and I have a little above recited:<NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg"><HI>Sect.</HI> 3.</NOTE> and &s;hall here give in my an&s;wer to each of them. And,</P>
<P N="1">1. The fir&s;t rea&s;on (which he is inclinable to conceal,) <HI>viz. That</HI> Paulinus <HI>was e&s;teem'd by &s;ome not Orthodox,</HI> ought not indeed to have been nam'd by him: it being the u&s;ual practice of the <HI>Arians,</HI> to repre&s;ent the <HI>Homo&Taurus;&s;ians</HI> as <HI>Sabellians,</HI> to make them
<PB N="37" REF="33"> thereby le&s;s acceptable, even odious to their own People; even others that did le&s;s incline to Ariani&s;m, were very apt to ap|prehend the Catholicks to be really &s;uch: in that they a&s;&s;erted the Father and the Son to be of <HI>one &s;ub&s;tance:</HI> becau&s;e they could not find out any di&s;tinction between the three Per&s;ons in the Trinity (which the <HI>Sabellians</HI> deny'd) unle&s;s they were allow'd to be three di&s;tinct Sub&s;tances; which the Catholick Doctrine of <HI>one &s;ub&s;tance</HI> altogether precluded.</P>
<P N="2">2. It had been more for the Doctors credit, if he had al&s;o pa&s;&s;ed over, without naming it, that other rea&s;on which he has given, why the <HI>Meletians</HI> might oppo&s;e <HI>Paulinus,</HI> and refu&s;e to communicate under him upon it, and not upon his unju&s;t po&s;|&s;e&s;&s;ion, <HI>viz. Becau&s;e he did not allow of the</HI> Meletian <HI>Clergy as being deriv'd from the</HI> Arians. For this could not, in all likeli|hood, be their plea, &s;ince <HI>Paulinus</HI> was one of the <HI>Alexandrian</HI> Synod, which determin'd, that tho&s;e who had &s;o far comply'd, with the <HI>Arians,</HI> as to receive orders from them, &s;hould be re|ceiv'd, upon their repentance, with their orders, and remain Prie&s;ts in their former &s;tations; of which we have the account in<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Ep. Synod ad Antio chen&s;es.</NOTE> <HI>Athana&s;ius:</HI> and they did no otherwi&s;e therein than the Church of God had always done before them: even the fir&s;t Council of <HI>Nicaea</HI><NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg"><HI>Can.</HI> 8.</NOTE>; and the more ancient famous Council<NOTE N="&Verbar;" PLACE="marg">Eu&s;eb. H. E. l. <HI>7.</HI> c. <HI>24.</HI></NOTE> of <HI>Antioch,</HI> which received <HI>Paulus Samo&s;atenus</HI> in his Bi&s;hoprick, upon his repentance: be&s;ides, <HI>Paulinus</HI> was never accounted a <HI>Lucife|rian;</HI> who&s;e error we know, con&s;i&s;ted in the denying communi|on with tho&s;e Bi&s;hops, who had <HI>Arian</HI> hands laid upon them; though they did afterwards come over to the Church, and re|linqui&s;ht the Here&s;ie: but, if the Objector will per&s;i&s;t, that <HI>Meletius</HI> did with&s;tand <HI>Paulinus</HI> as a <HI>Luciferian;</HI> &s;ince <HI>Lucifer</HI> was not condemn'd as an Heretick, but only as a Schi&s;matick, in that he refu&s;ed to communicate with his Brethren, the Bi&s;hops; and re|fus'd it upon tho&s;e terms which the Church did not allow: we &s;hall hereby gain that which Dr. <HI>Hody</HI> will not thank us for: and with as much authority on our &s;ide, as the practice of &s;o great a man, as <HI>Meletius</HI> is known to have been, can add to it, <HI>viz. That a depriv'd Bi&s;hop hath not &s;ubmitted to his Succe&s;&s;or, though he was no Heretick,</HI> Paulinus <HI>being in all other things &s;uch who&s;e com|munion no good Catholicks can justly refu&s;e. Catholicum quidem &amp; &s;anctum virum, &amp; per omnia dignum &s;acerdotio</HI> Paulinum <HI>Epi&s;copum collocavit,</HI> as <HI>Ruffinus</HI><NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">H. Socrat. l. <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">. c. <HI>27.</HI></NOTE> &s;peaks of him: have we not as much au|thority on our &s;ide, as the Church of God can give us? Which
<PB N="38" REF="34"> refu&s;ed to communicate with <HI>Lucifer Calaritanus</HI> &s;olely upon the &s;ame account: and the main point is clear'd. For it is mani|fe&s;t, that if <HI>Meletius,</HI> the ejected Bi&s;hop, did not refu&s;e <HI>Paulinus</HI> the <HI>Succe&s;&s;or,</HI> as an intruder on his Church Right, and in that in&s;tance of the &s;in, a Schi&s;matick: he had &s;ufficient ground to do it, as he was a Schi&s;matick in the foremention'd in&s;tance of it: and <HI>Paulinus</HI>'s Orthodoxy would have vindicated him again&s;t <HI>Melerius,</HI> no otherwi&s;e than <HI>Lucifer</HI>'s Orthodoxy did him, again&s;t the Church of God.</P>
<P>I have already ob&s;erved, how <HI>Baronius</HI> all along, contends to have <HI>Paulinus</HI> the Catholick Bi&s;hop of <HI>Antioch,</HI> though he owns <HI>Meletius</HI> to have been alive at the &s;ame time: and I cannot but further take notice with what impotency and meanne&s;s of ar|gument he pur&s;ues it: as, when he gives this for one of his rea|&s;ons,<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>An.</HI> 362. <HI>p.</HI> 87.</NOTE> <HI>viz.</HI> becau&s;e <HI>Meletius</HI> was once an <HI>Arian,</HI> and had been con&s;ecrated by the <HI>Arian</HI> Bi&s;hops: but did not the Church, at that time, receive all &s;uch in their Orders? Does not the <HI>Annali&s;t</HI> tell us &s;o? But the learn'd Cardinal had recorded it as true Hi&s;tory,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Ibid.</NOTE> that <HI>Lucifer Calaritanus</HI> did enthrone <HI>Paulinus</HI> in the <HI>Antiochian</HI> Chair, as the Pope's Legate; and he is bound to make the performance as pa&s;&s;able as he can; though his attempts do make but the whole more incredible, as it is u&s;ual for tho&s;e to do, that embarque in a bad cau&s;e: And, notwith&s;tanding a mo&s;t e&s;tabli&s;ht principle in the Church is violated by it, and two Bi&s;hops are in one Chair at the &s;ame time, he is abundantly &s;e|cur'd, that his <HI>Holine&s;s</HI>'s appearance in the Cau&s;e, is a competent di&s;pen&s;ation for it all. And I think it will be the Doctors be&s;t way to take up his refuge there al&s;o, and vouch his <HI>Succe&s;&s;or</HI> (at lea&s;t at <HI>Antioch</HI>) by the &s;ame authority: I am &s;ure he may do it by as good argument as he u&s;es, when he proves, in the next place, that the <HI>Meletians</HI> did not refu&s;e communion with <HI>Pau|linus</HI> on the &s;core of his being an U&s;urper, and unju&s;tly po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ed of <HI>Meletius</HI>'s Chair; becau&s;e they refu&s;ed him, as pl<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">c'd in the <HI>Antiochian</HI> Chair, by him who had no authority for it; and for this he tells us</P>
<P N="3">3ly. That <HI>Paulinus</HI> was placed in his See by an incompetent Authority: For, <HI>Lucifer Calaritanus</HI> (who &s;eated him there) <HI>had nothing at all to do with the See of</HI> Antioch: <HI>What authority had he to Con&s;titute a Bi&s;hop of</HI> Antioch? <HI>Had</HI> Meletius <HI>been dead, the Church of</HI> Antioch <HI>would not have been oblig'd to &s;ubmit to</HI> Paulinus, <HI>whom he made Bi&s;hop.</HI> And what then? might they not refu&s;e
<PB N="39" REF="34"> him, as St. <HI>Cyprians Second,</HI> and a Po&s;&s;e&s;&s;or without right, becau&s;e <HI>Meletius</HI> was a live; and likewi&s;e, becau&s;e we was placed there by <HI>Lucifer</HI>'s hands, which were not &s;ufficiently authoriz'd for it? How do the&s;e two rea&s;ons exclude one another? The Doctor may &s;ee how they do, but no body el&s;e can, if <HI>Meletius</HI> had been dead, they could not be &s;aid to refu&s;e <HI>Paulinus</HI> for both rea&s;ons, but only for the latter: But &s;o long as he was alive they might have refu&s;ed him for both rea&s;ons, for what any man alive can di&s;cern, but him&s;elf, in the two rea&s;ons, as rend|ring their doing of it, upon the account of them, incon&s;i&s;tent: And why he urges <HI>Lucifers</HI> &s;uppo&s;ed powerle&s;s enthroning him, as an Argument that they did not receive him, becau&s;e he was an intruder upon <HI>Meletius,</HI> he &s;eems only able to give an account. Be&s;ides; does not the Doctor wonderfully forget his main <HI>Pro|legomenon:</HI> viz. <HI>That</HI> Po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion <HI>and</HI> Orthodoxy <HI>create a right, and oblige the Subjects to receive the pre&s;ent Bi&s;hop under the&s;e two qualifications, though the predece&s;&s;or be unju&s;tly remov'd, and con&s;e|quently the</HI> Po&s;&s;e&s;&s;or <HI>was unduly enthron'd?</HI> I always thought that the Principle which they have advanced, had obliged them to receive him that is in the Chair, i. e. the <HI>Po&s;&s;e&s;&s;or,</HI> if other ways <HI>unexce|ptionable.</HI> And how comes it then to pa&s;s that the Doctor pleads, that the <HI>Meletians</HI> might refu&s;e <HI>Paulinus</HI> when <HI>po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ed</HI> by <HI>Lucifer,</HI> and was every waies el&s;e unexceptionable, &s;ave that he had not a <HI>Right</HI> to do it? He thinks fit (in<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">To the Reade<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"></NOTE> one place of his Book) to put us upon this Impo&s;&s;ibility, (as he concludes it to be) <HI>That to justify our &s;elves from the charge of Schi&s;me,</HI> in that we do not &s;ubmit to the pre&s;ent <HI>unjust</HI> and <HI>uncanonical Deprivations,</HI> and receive the pre&s;ent Po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ors, we ought to prove <HI>that no one Bi&s;hop, who is put into the place of another, depo&s;ed by an incom|petent Authority, ought to be own'd:</HI> whereas even him&s;elf has put us in a ready way to do it; he hath done it to our hands; in that he hath granted, from the <HI>Meletians</HI> practice, and his own principles, that <HI>Paulinus</HI> was not own'd, becau&s;e he was placed in <HI>Antioch</HI> by an incompetent Authority: And that we in <HI>England</HI> are <HI>not oblig'd to receive an Archbi&s;hop of</HI> Canterbury, <HI>con&s;tituted by an Outlandi&s;h Bi&s;hop, that had nothing at all to do here,</HI> in the room of a Bani&s;h'd <HI>Archbi&s;hop:</HI> For, &s;urely the Incompetency of an Authority can no more legitimate the Di&s;placing, than the placing of a Bi&s;hop.</P>
<P>But to &s;peak a word or two as to the Incompetency of a Bi&s;hop to act, and con&s;titute a Bi&s;hop out of his own di&s;trict,
<PB N="40" REF="35"> under the &s;ame Emergences <HI>Lucifer</HI> of <HI>Sardinia</HI> acted, when he placed <HI>Paulinus</HI> in <HI>Antioch:</HI> Now if it be &s;o as the Doctor will have it, and <HI>Lucifer</HI> had no right, as a Bi&s;hop of Chri&s;tendom, (though <HI>Meletius</HI> had been dead or alive, and ju&s;tly abdicated) to come into <HI>Antioch,</HI> and con&s;e&s;crate and fix an Orthodox Bi&s;hop there, and oblige the <HI>Antiochians</HI> to receive him, for the continuance or replantation of the Catholick Doctrine and Succe&s;&s;ion, which by rea&s;on of the Here&s;y and Schi&s;m of the <HI>Arians,</HI> was in vi&s;ible danger to be &s;uppre&s;&s;ed, if not quite ex|tingui&s;hed, they having then po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ed them&s;elves of all the Churches in that City: For, &s;aving that <HI>Paulinus</HI> (&s;ometime after his Enthronement) gain'd a Church of <HI>Euzoius</HI> the <HI>Arian</HI> Bi&s;hop, within the Walls, out of a re&s;pect to his per&s;on, not his Doctrine, the <HI>Homo&Taurus;&s;ians</HI> held their A&s;&s;embly, for Gods wor&s;hip, in the &s;uburbs only: I &s;ay, if this be a fixed truth, as the Doctor peremptorily a&s;&s;erts it to be; and <HI>Lucifer Calari|tanus</HI> had then no right in <HI>Antioch,</HI> nor any Forrein Bi&s;hop has at this day, in <HI>England,</HI> or any Region, which is not his proper di&s;trict, to retrieve and re&s;tore the Chri&s;tian Doctrine and Succe&s;&s;ion, under the forementioned, or the like emer|gencies: I do demand of him, what account he will give of the Practice of the mo&s;t eminent Bi&s;hops of Chri&s;tendom (e&s;|pecially during the <HI>Eu&s;ebian</HI> and <HI>Arian</HI> Per&s;ecutions, and pro&s;|perous &s;ucce&s;s of S<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">hi&s;m and Here&s;y at that time) who have all along done the &s;ame that <HI>Lucifer</HI> did in <HI>Antioch</HI> and Taught and Ordain'd in the re&s;pective Regions, in which they were exil'd, Ariani&s;m having infected the whole World? And al&s;o of &s;uch Orthodox Prelates and Subjects, who eith<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">r ju&s;tified, or obey'd them in it? Or how will he reconcile this (if he thinks there be need) to his principles?</P>
<P><NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Socr. l. <HI>2</HI> c. <HI>19.</HI></NOTE>I'le begin fi<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">&s;t with the great and mo&s;t holy <HI>Athana&s;ius,</HI> who, being recalled from his Exile by <HI>Constantius,</HI> in his way to <HI>Alexandria,</HI> Taught the Believers that they &s;hould avoyd the <HI>Arians,</HI> and adhere to the <HI>Homo&Taurus;&s;ian</HI> Doctrine: And he ordain'd in many of the Churches:<NOTE PLACE="marg"><GAP DESC="foreign">.</NOTE> And tho' the <HI>Eu&s;ebians</HI> added his doing of it to the number of his accu&s;ations; and it was one of their charges again&s;t him; we do not find it was reputed his crime by the Catholicks:<NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg">Soz. l. <HI>5.</HI> c. <HI>12.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Eu&s;ebius Vercellen&s;is</HI> travell'd over the <HI>Ea&s;t,</HI> and re|duc'd and &s;ettled the Churches there: and <HI>Hilarius Pictaven&s;is</HI> did the &s;ame in <HI>France,</HI> and in <HI>Italy:</HI> neither did <HI>Eu&s;ebius Sa|mo&s;aien&s;is</HI> come behind any of them in the &s;ame Duty: But
<PB N="41" REF="35"> being bani&s;h'd by <HI>&V;alens,</HI> and knowing that many Churches were deprived of their Pa&s;tors, he travelled over <HI>Syria, Phaenicia,</HI><NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg">Theod. H. E. l. <HI>4.</HI> c. <HI>12.</HI></NOTE> and <HI>Pale&s;tine</HI> in a di&s;gui&s;ed habit, and there created Presbyters and Deacons, and performed other Eccle&s;ia&s;tical Offices: And <HI>if at any time he met with Bi&s;hops who con&s;ented with him in Doctrine,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg"><GAP DESC="foreign">.</NOTE> <HI>he con&s;tituted them Governors over &s;uch Churches as wanted Pa&s;tors.</HI> Though <HI>Eustathius</HI> did re&s;ign his Bi&s;hoprick of <HI>Antioch</HI> to <HI>Meletius,</HI> and quitted him&s;elf of his &s;pecial care of that City, he did not al&s;o quit his Epi&s;copal power, and lay a&s;ide his Function: But when he was freed from his Exile by <HI>Jovianus,</HI> he came to <HI>Con&s;tantinople,</HI> that he might confirm the <HI>Homo&Taurus;&s;ian</HI> Faith in that City: as we read in St.<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Hom. de Eu&s;t. Antioch. Tom. <HI>5.</HI> Ed. lat. Pari&s;.</NOTE> <HI>Chry&s;o&s;tome</HI><NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg">l. <HI>4.</HI> e. <HI>13.</HI> p. l. <HI>6.</HI> c. <HI>13.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Socrates</HI> and <HI>Sozomen.</HI> St. <HI>Chry&s;o&s;tome</HI> &s;ays,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Illo itaque tempore eccle&s;iam quod apud nos e&s;t regebat beatus i&s;te &s;acram hanc na|vem multa cum &s;ecuritate gubernabat quoquo circum|cur&s;itans, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> Nautas, Ve|ctores, Navigantes, <HI>&amp;c.</HI></NOTE> <Q>That he then govern'd their City of <HI>Con&s;tantinople,</HI> and as a wi&s;e Phyp&s;itian prepared all manner of Medicines for the prevention of that di&s;ea&s;e, which he fore&s;aw would, through <HI>Ariani&s;m,</HI> in a little time, infe&s;t them, as it had done all their neigh|bours, having an active and general care of all, inciting all men of all orders, that they &s;hould watch and at|tend as if the Pyrats had actually fir'd their City, and &s;hiprack'd their Faith.</Q> But <HI>Socrates</HI> and <HI>Sozomen</HI> are more particular who tell us, <Q>That the people cho&s;e <HI>Evagrius</HI> their Bi&s;hop, upon the death of <HI>Eudoxius</HI> the <HI>Arian,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Ibid. &s;upra.</NOTE> who had intruded into the <HI>Con&s;tantinoplitan</HI> Chair, and that <HI>Eu&s;tathius</HI> con&s;ecrated and enthron'd him:</Q> For which <HI>Valeus</HI> bani&s;h'd them both. But they were not &s;u&s;pended or cen&s;ured for it,<NOTE PLACE="marg"><GAP DESC="foreign"></NOTE> by their brethren the Catholick Bi&s;hops: And the true Succe&s;|&s;ion in that City was a&s;&s;erted and maintain'd by it, and the Go&s;pel glorified in their &s;ufferings upon it.&mdash; St. <HI>Chri|&s;o&s;tome</HI> goes on, and tells us;<NOTE PLACE="marg">Ibid &s;upra.</NOTE> <Q>That <HI>Eustathius</HI> did not only take care of their particular City,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Neque vero hic tantum hanc curam adhibuit, &s;ed in omnes partes mittebat, qui docerent, qui hortarentur, qui di&s;putarent, qui ho&s;tibus adi|tum omnem intercluderent &mdash;Eccle&s;iae prae&s;ulem non de illa tantum &s;olicitum e&s;&s;e debere, quae a Spiritu Sancto illi commi&s;&s;a e&s;t, &s;ed etiam de quavis in orbe terrarum con&s;tituta&mdash;&s;i enim pra &V;niver&s;a Eccle&s;ia fundendae &s;unt preces mul<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters"> magis &amp; ejus &V;niver&s;ae gerere curam oportet.</NOTE> but &s;ent forth his Emi&s;&s;aries into all parts, that &s;hould teach, exhort, di&s;pute, and preclude the enemy in each of his approaches it being the duty of a B<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">&s;hop to be &s;olicitous, not only for that one Church, which the Holy Gho&s;t hath committed to him, but for every Church in the Chri&s;tian World: accordingly as it is his duty to pray for the whole Church.</Q></P>
<PB N="42" REF="36">
<P>To come home, to our own Kingdome; epecially &s;in Doctor <HI>Hody</HI> has made one of his In&s;tances here: No man will &s;ay, but that <HI>Au&s;tin</HI> the Monk was rightfully con&s;tituted Archbi&s;hop of <HI>Canterbury</HI> by <HI>Gregory</HI> the great, who was an outlandi&s;h Bi&s;hop, <HI>i. e.</HI> Bi&s;hop of <HI>Rome:</HI> we to be &s;ure may not &s;ay otherwi&s;e, &s;ince we claim the Succe&s;&s;ion of our Bi|&s;hops from him; And becau&s;e the Succe&s;&s;ion had fail'd, and Chri&s;tianity with it, by rea&s;on of the bani&s;hment, and other hard u&s;age, the Bi&s;hops had receiv'd upon the return of Hea|theni&s;m, which then mo&s;tly reign'd in this <HI>I&s;land:</HI> The re|turning of the Chri&s;tian Religion was &s;ufficient to warrant it. And there is not any thing in that performance which makes the&s;e two great Men to appear blame worthy, but that <HI>Gre|gory</HI> claim'd a right to it, as his own peculiar, exclu&s;ive to the re&s;t of the Bi&s;hops of Chri&s;tendom, And pleaded a power from the &s;ame bottom, as derived from <HI>Christ</HI> and St. <HI>Peter</HI> to him, enabling him to in&s;pect and animadvert upon all of them, and to be unaccountable for it; even to demand a &s;ub|jection from them: And <HI>Au&s;tin,</HI> in pur&s;uance of his Com|mi&s;&s;ion from him, extended it to <HI>Wales:</HI> And exerci&s;ed it Autoratively and Arbitrarily over the Pa&s;tors, and Believers, and their Archbi&s;hop there, who were duly and regularly &s;eated in a ju&s;t polity, rightful government and &s;ubordination, the &s;incere profe&s;&s;ion of the Orthodox Faith, and in a lawful Succe&s;&s;ion. The &s;um of the whole matter is this.</P>
<P>No Bi&s;hop, by the Canons of the Church, may act out of his di&s;trict, except in Barbarous Regions, in which there is no Bi&s;hop: Or when another, di&s;trict is over run with Here&s;y and Schi&s;m, to the hazarding of the Catholick Faith and Suc|ce&s;&s;ion; under which emergencies he may, and ought upon a po&s;&s;ibility of &s;ucce&s;s, to extend his care, and exerci&s;e his Epi&s;|copal Function, without his pale; even by con&s;tituting his own Officers there; as the forementioned eminent Bi&s;hops and Con|fe&s;&s;ors have done: And, not only their practice, but the polity of Chri&s;tendom will bear him out in it: A Reformation is otherwi&s;e impracticable, upon an Apo&s;ta&s;y of one or more Churches; if the State of the World be &s;uch, that Synods cannot be had: Unle&s;s we &s;hou'd follow <HI>Baronius,</HI> and call in the Popes univer&s;al Pa&s;tor&s;hip and Superintendency for that purpo&s;e: And therefore that<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>Ann.</HI> 362. <HI>p.</HI> 183. <HI>c.</HI> 1.</NOTE> Annali&s;t &s;ays, that <HI>Athana&s;ius, Eu&s;ebius Vercellen&s;is,</HI> and <HI>Lucifer Calaritanus</HI> acted in their For|rein
<PB N="43" REF="36"> in&s;pections, as Legates from <HI>Rome;</HI> but precariou&s;ly enough, and without any bottom for it. And perhaps as our Church of <HI>England</HI> was reformed by &s;ome of her own Doctors and Bi&s;hops, who Con&s;ecrated other Bi&s;hops, and fixed them in Sees, which were then filled with <HI>Romani&s;ts,</HI> as the forementioned Sees, in which the abovenamed eminent Servants of God placed their Bi&s;hops, were fill'd with <HI>Arians,</HI> &s;o our Church will be found able to ju&s;tify her&s;elf; but upon the &s;ame Con&s;iderations, and upon them only; at lea&s;t not without them. And I heartily wi&s;h &s;ome of tho&s;e who have undertook her Ju&s;tification, had con&s;ider'd tho&s;e famous Pre&s;idents a little more then they have done: but of this only by the way. It is manife&s;t that the&s;e things did not come into Doctor <HI>Hody</HI>'s thoughts: If they had, he would not, &s;urely, have urged it as unlawful in all ca&s;es, for a forrein Bi&s;hop to act beyond his Di&s;trict: and we can allow him to defend a Succe&s;&s;or po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ing a full See, upon the foremention'd Con&s;iderations. But in the fourth and la&s;t place.</P>
<P N="4">4hly. He out does his unthinking &s;elf, when he urges, that Meletius's <HI>Party did not receive</HI> Paulinus, <HI>but adher'd to</HI> Meletius, <HI>becau&s;e no Sovereign power had at that time made</HI> Meletius <HI>un|capable of &s;erving as Bi&s;hop of</HI> Antioch; <HI>the Emperor having recall'd his bani&s;hment, and given him leave to return to his See, and he was upon the road.</HI> For, be&s;ides the <GAP DESC="foreign"> which it im|ply's: As, that the Imperial Pre&s;cription doth unmake, and it's relaxation make, a Bi&s;hop, and engage or di&s;engage a Peo|ple, as to their dependance upon him: He that had thought at all, would never have intimated, that &s;uch con&s;iderations could have any ways influenced the&s;e <HI>Meletians,</HI> to the rejecting, or receiving, their proper Bi&s;hop <HI>Meletius:</HI> For what is more ma|nife&s;t then the zeal with which they accompanied him, (&s;o long as they could) and adher'd to him, upon his bani&s;hment? It's heat and fervency boyl'd too high: And they a&s;&s;aulted the Governor, that carried him away, with &s;tones: Neither did they, with le&s;s love, and zeal, and con&s;cience of duty, but better regulated, follow him into <HI>Armenia,</HI> though they were, in their per&s;ons, disjoyned from him; but own'd him alone to be their &s;upreme Pa&s;tor, Communicating under him, and no other, as their Virtual Head, in their &s;eparate conventions at <HI>Antioch,</HI> until his return unto them, whom they then received with all expre&s;&s;ions of obedience, joy, and gratitude, as the Pa|&s;tor
<PB N="44" REF="37"> and Bi&s;hop of their Souls; and, under <HI>Chri&s;t Je&s;us,</HI> the great In&s;trument of their Salvation: All which and more may be &s;een in St.<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Hom. de Mel. Antioch.</NOTE> <HI>Chry&s;o&s;tome:</HI> And I have in part, given an account of it. Surely, there is nothing in all this that can give a man of common perceptions occa&s;ion to believe, that the Secular bani&s;hment did cut off their Subordination, and quit them of their allegiance to him: The contrary is evident beyond a Contradiction. And is it not again as evident to the &s;ame common apprehen&s;ions, that as he remain'd a Bi&s;hop, in the full extent of his right, notwith&s;tanding his exile, and it did not in the lea&s;t intercept it, but his People own'd and obey'd him, as their Bi&s;hop, during the whole time of his ab&s;ence, &s;o, that &s;uch his right is no ways owing to his return by the favour of the Empire: And that his People cannot be conceived to have thought it was? <HI>Meletius</HI>'s being <HI>upon the road homewards</HI> could not create that right in him, which he had in <HI>Armenia,</HI> nor be the rea&s;on why <HI>Paulinus</HI> was rejected, and him&s;elf received by his <HI>Antiochians:</HI> Nothing but the Doctors Ignorance of the Story, and matter of Fact, or his ra&s;h and undige&s;ted thoughts, could occa&s;ion him to produce this as an in&s;tance, upon &s;uch an occa&s;ion.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="4" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. IV.</HEAD>
<P>HAving touch'd upon the undue behaviour of <HI>Meletius</HI>'s Party towards the Governor of the City, upon his taking their Bi&s;hop from them into <HI>Armenia:</HI> I &s;hall venture upon a di|gre&s;&s;ion, &s;o for as to give an account of the whole Pa&s;&s;age, and to make &s;ome ju&s;t Ob&s;ervations vpon it: The doing of which will tend much to the Reputation of his Flock, and mo&s;tly of <HI>Meletius</HI> him&s;elf, &s;ince it will thence plainly appear, that it was not for the honour and riches of his Bi&s;hoprick, that he contended with <HI>Paulinus</HI> and his <HI>Eu&s;tathians</HI> (for part of the <HI>Eustathians</HI> adhered to <HI>Paulinus,</HI> and part to <HI>Meletius</HI> upon the Schi&s;m) but the In&s;titutions and the rights of the of the Church, and its Unity and Peace, which would have &s;uffer'd much, by his &s;ubmi&s;&s;ion to a Succe&s;&s;or again&s;t the Laws of it. Though I expect no thanks from the Doctor for it, If the&s;e Papers &s;hould chance to come into his hands. The whole matter of Fact is this, as it may be found in St. <HI>Chry&s;o|&s;tome,</HI> in the abovemention'd <HI>Homily. When the Governor of the
<PB N="45" REF="37"> City rode in his Chariot over the middle of the market Place, and cau&s;ed the Holy Bi&s;hop to be placed by him, stones thicker than &s;now were ca&s;t at his head from every &s;ide, the City by no means bearing his being taken away; but cho&s;e rather to die, then lo&s;e him. But what did the ble&s;&s;ed Bi&s;hop do? Seeing the ca&s;t of &s;tones, he folded up his Garments, and cover'd the Pre&s;idents head with them, and made his enemies a&s;hamed by that his eminent Instance of his own meekne&s;s: and taught them and his people at once what patience they ought to &s;hew towards them that do them injury: and that they ought, not only to do them no hurt, but even when they are in dan|ger from other men, to re&s;cue them from it, with their best endeavour.</HI></P>
<P>I will add to this a no le&s;s eminent In&s;tance of the like behavour, in all meekne&s;s, humanity, and charity, which the Apo&s;tolical <HI>Eu&s;ebius,</HI> Bi&s;hop of <HI>Samo&s;ata,</HI> hath left to the World,<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>L.</HI> 4. <HI>c.</HI> 13. <GAP DESC="foreign">.</NOTE> by his own practice, and at the &s;ame time: of which <HI>Theodorit</HI> gives us this following account in his Church Hi&s;tory. <HI>When the Emperours Edict for his Bani&s;hment was deliver'd unto him, he receiv'd it with the greate&s;t Chri&s;tian Prudence and magnanimity: And fir&s;t order'd the me&s;&s;enger to keep it private, lea&s;t the People &s;hould ri&s;e upon it, and cast him into</HI> Euphrates, <HI>which runs by the City Wals, and his life &s;hould be required at the Bi&s;hops hands by the Government: And then (it being twilight when the me&s;|&s;age was brought) having &s;aid evening Prayer, as he u&s;ually did, instead of going to &s;leep, he went out of the City, attended with one Servant, who carried a Pillow and a Book, and coming to the River, he took &s;hipping, and &s;afely arrived, &s;o &s;oon as it was day, at</HI> Zeugma, <HI>as he de&s;igned.</HI> Samo&s;ata <HI>was by this time fill'd with &s;orrow and c<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">mplaints, upon the lo&s;s of their Bi&s;hop, being inform'd of his departure by another Servant, who was to follow him with a few nece&s;&s;ary things: And the Citizens went directly to</HI> Euphrates, and after they had &s;ailed up and down, <HI>for &s;ometime, they at length came to him: whom they &s;olicited, with lamentations and groans, and the force of tears, to return to them, and not leave them to the cruelty of Wolves: But when they could not per&s;wade him, and had heard him recite the Precept of St.</HI> Paul, <HI>in Which we are</HI> ma|nife&s;t<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">y <HI>commanded to obey Magistrates and Powers;</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg"><GAP DESC="foreign">.</NOTE> <HI>he receiv'd a few of tho&s;e many things they pre&s;ented him with, to &s;u&s;tain him in his long Journey&punc; and when he had fortified them with his Weapons of Doctrine and Prayers, and exceedingly exhorted them, that they would defend the Apo&s;tolical precepts, he departed from them.</HI></P>
<P>Tho&s;e Bi&s;hops that are truly Apo&s;tolical, and under per&s;e|cution,
<PB N="46" REF="38"> do not then preach <HI>Mob</HI> Doctrines to their people: They are &s;o far from inciting the Believers to make in&s;urrection for their re&s;cue; that they will not countenance them, when they are made: But their bu&s;ine&s;s is to &s;uppre&s;s them, and reprove tho&s;e that are actors, and managers of them, lea&s;t they receive damnation for it: They not only teach their Flocks <HI>pa&s;&s;ive Obedience,</HI> and <HI>non-re&s;i&s;tance</HI> to the Powers on earth, under their harder Sentences; but to be active and &s;erviceable in the pre&s;ervation and defence of their Per&s;ons, though in execution of them: and take care that their unju&s;t Laws and Edicts be receiv'd with the &s;ame calm and re&s;ignation as tho&s;e that are mo&s;t righteous; and that no &s;triving be in the Streets by rea&s;on of them, any more then there was in <HI>Jeru|&s;alem,</HI> when our Saviour was led forth to be crucified. The be&s;t of Princes have not only mutable natures and wills, as well as other men; but they are more &s;ubject to change upon the account of the &s;ingular circum&s;tances they are always under: and the Church of God has &s;till &s;uffer'd more or le&s;s by rea&s;on of them: The great <HI>Eustathius</HI> of <HI>Antioch,</HI> to whom the Chri&s;tian Church ow'd &s;o much, was bani&s;h'd by <HI>Constantine</HI> the Great, through the <HI>Eu&s;ebians</HI> in&s;tigation, who had influenced him too much towards his latter end: St.<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>Socr. l.</HI> 7. <HI>c.</HI> 33. <HI>Evag. l.</HI> 1. <HI>c.</HI> 3&punc; 4, 5. 12.</NOTE> <HI>Cyril</HI> and <HI>Memnon,</HI> two eminent Bi&s;hops, and Defenders of the Faith, &s;uffer'd for a time in the Council of <HI>Ephe&s;us,</HI> and the Catholick Faith of one per&s;on in the Incarnation, as before of <HI>one Sub&s;tance</HI> together with them, under <HI>Theodo&s;ius</HI> the younger; though he was no Heretick, but a &s;tout Defender of the Chri&s;tian Doctrine, and Liberty, by his Principles: and the Per&s;ons and Doctrines of the&s;e two Catholick Bi&s;hops were Anathematized at once by a Conven|tion held in an Inn, under <HI>John</HI> of <HI>Antioch,</HI> and <HI>Ne&s;torius</HI> and his Here&s;y were receiv'd as Orthodox: But the good Emperor was cheated into it by the treachery and fal&s;e Information of <HI>Candidianus,</HI> a principal Favorite, and the <HI>Nestorians</HI> party at Court; who&s;e craft and indu&s;try was &s;uch, that they precluded all Po&s;ts, which the true Council &s;ent to inform his Maje&s;ty of the truth of its proceedings, and their own integrity. Even <HI>Con&s;tantius</HI> was no ill man in him&s;elf, nor perhaps in his principles: But he was carried away by a powerful Party of the Clergy and Laity; and it was through their deceit and in&s;tigation that he &s;o &s;orely per&s;ecuted the Orthodox. Now, under all the&s;e infelicities and more of them, the truly Apo|&s;tolical
<PB N="47" REF="38"> Bi&s;hops made it their bu&s;ine&s;s (as I have above &s;hew'd, to form their Flocks into the Chri&s;tian temper of meekne&s;s, mo|de&s;ty and gentlne&s;s, and an entire &s;ubmi&s;&s;ion and re&s;ignation to that part of it which was worldly, bodily, and penal; without any abatement of their duty and love to tho&s;e, which laid the burden upon them: and they claim'd right and truth, when re|trenched, with the &s;ame complexion: but never by b<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">inging in, or abetting a foreign Power, with force and arms, to retrieve and re&s;tore them: as the<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Vid. Carion. Chron. lib. <HI>4.</HI> in Hen <HI>4.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Romani&s;ts</HI> once did <HI>Rodolphus</HI> upon the Emperor <HI>Hen.</HI> IV. (he having as they &s;aid, at lea&s;t, u&s;urped &s;ome Church Priviledges) whom they fir&s;t placed on <HI>Henry</HI>'s Throne, and after him his two Sons, by an horrid and mo&s;t un|natural Rebellion, on <HI>Hildebrandian</HI> Principles, though <HI>Rodolphus</HI> being mortally wounded, was brought to repentance: (of which vertue I do not find <HI>Henry</HI>'s two Sons to have been guilty) and when he was on his death-bed, call'd for his right hand, which had been cut off in a Battle, and &s;hew'd it to the Bi&s;hops which &s;tood by, and had incited him to that hideous Re|bellion, &s;peaking the&s;e words to them:<NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg">Haec dextra e&s;t inquit, quae Imperatori promi&s;&s;am fidem confirmavi, haec violatae &agrave; me, vobis impul&s;oribus, fidei argumentum: &amp; nefariae ve|&s;trae perfidiae te&s;tis e&s;t: d<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> qua a vobis rationes reddend<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> erunt Deo&punc;</NOTE> <HI>This is the right-hand with which I confirm'd the Faith which I promi&s;ed to the Emperor: this is a &s;ign of the Faith which I violated by your instigation, and is a witne&s;s of your perfidiou&s;ne&s;s, of which an account is to be given to God by you.</HI></P>
<P>In &s;hort, when the &s;ecular arm remov'd their Bi&s;hops, they were in&s;tructed by no means to &s;ubmit to, and receive the <HI>Suc|ce&s;&s;or:</HI> but to continue their &s;ubordination to the abdicated, and to hold communion with them, in their &s;eparate Conventions, and the Apo&s;tolical Doctrine and Di&s;cipline, in a rightful Suc|ce&s;&s;ion, and to preclude Schi&s;m as well as Here&s;ie: but in other re&s;pects to give way to the outward force in meekne&s;s of &s;pirit, as a notorious and indi&s;pen&s;able duty laid upon them by St. <HI>Paul:</HI> and this was the practice of <HI>Meletius</HI>'s party in <HI>Antioch,</HI> in oppo&s;i|tion, not only to <HI>Euzoius</HI> the <HI>Arian Po&s;&s;e&s;&s;or,</HI> and his Heterodoxies in Faith, but to <HI>Paulinus</HI> and his <HI>Eustathians,</HI> (for, as I have already &s;aid, though the <HI>Eu&s;tathians</HI> were they who fir&s;t followed <HI>Eu&s;tathius,</HI> upon his removal from <HI>Antioch;</HI> they afterwards divided, and &s;ome adhered to <HI>Meletius,</HI> and &s;ome to <HI>Paulinus</HI>) which <HI>Eu&s;tathians</HI> were Orthodox in Doctrine, but maintained a po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion upon a full See: and accordingly, <HI>Eu&s;ebius Samo&s;aten&s;is</HI>'s People are &s;aid, (in<NOTE N="&Verbar;" PLACE="marg"><HI>L.</HI> 4. <HI>C.</HI> 14.</NOTE> <HI>Theodorit</HI>'s Hi&s;tory of that Affair) <HI>rich and poor, master and &s;er|vant,
<PB N="48" REF="39"> man and woman, young and old,</HI> to have for&s;aken the Church upon a <HI>Succe&s;&s;ors</HI> a&s;cending his Throne at <HI>Samo&s;ata:</HI> and when they were depriv'd of their Pa&s;tor, they executed his office,<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><GAP DESC="foreign">.</NOTE> in their &s;everal &s;tations and capacities; whether as Presbyters, Deacons, or believers only: the latter, as &s;uch, having a right, and it is their duty, when no Officers can be had, to pray to God and prai&s;e him, <HI>and exhort one another while it is to day,</HI> in their re&s;pective &s;tations: and they thus <HI>continuing in Faith and good Works,</HI> became, though rejected of men, <HI>mighty with God;</HI> and &s;o <HI>prevailed,</HI> that in his own good time, <HI>their eyes &s;aw</HI> again their <HI>Teachers:</HI> and he re&s;tored their Bi&s;hops unto them, though by the hands of <HI>Julian</HI> the Apo&s;tate, and his toleration; which he de&s;ign'd for the Church's extirpation; and his mercy will &s;till find out a way that our Bi&s;hops &s;hall not always, nor finally, be bani&s;h'd from us. And we may &s;ecurely expect it by vertue of the &s;ame promi&s;e, which our Saviour made to his Church, that he would be with her <HI>always</HI> to <HI>the end of the World.</HI> And tho' the adver&s;aries of <HI>Judah</HI> do prevail upon the death of <HI>Cyrus,</HI> and obtain an <HI>Artaxerxes</HI> to be his Succe&s;&s;or, &s;o that the building does not go on for a time, as it was when the &s;econd Temple was erecting; he will afterwards &s;end us a <HI>Darius,</HI> who &s;hall take care that it may be continued: and by the&s;e Vici&s;&s;itudes, as the <HI>Jews</HI> did of old, who, in their pa&s;&s;age to their <HI>Canaan,</HI> were &s;ometimes in Vallies, and &s;ometimes on the Hills, &s;ometimes in &s;mooth, and &s;ometimes in rough Places; &s;ometimes in Peace, and &s;ometimes in War, &s;hall we al&s;o po&s;&s;e&s;s our <HI>Canaan</HI> till the end of this Government, &s;hall be, by a <HI>re&s;titution</HI> of all things: then&punc; when <HI>Chri&s;t &s;hall deliver up the Kingdom to the Father, that God may be all in all.</HI></P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="5" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. V.</HEAD>
<P>I Will make the following remarks upon <HI>Meletius, Paulinus, Flavianus</HI> and <HI>Evagrius,</HI> all either rightful or pretended Bi|&s;hops of <HI>Antioch;</HI> which may be u&s;eful in our pre&s;ent contro|ver&s;ie; and then &s;hake hands with them: And in the fir&s;t place I do ob&s;erve.</P>
<P N="1">I. That after a long Di&s;&s;ention, and Schi&s;m, which had di|&s;tracted the Church of <HI>Antioch,</HI><NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg">Socrat. l. <HI>5.</HI> c. <HI>5.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Paulinus,</HI> and <HI>Meletius,</HI> upon an accommodation between them&s;elves, were jointly and unanimou&s;ly receiv'd by the whole Church, (e&s;pecially the Pa&s;tors and Peo|ple
<PB N="49" REF="39"> in that City, that were Orthodox) to be Bi&s;hops there, du|ring the natural life of each of them: and, upon the death of either, the Superviver was to be Bi&s;hop alone.<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>L.</HI> 5. <HI>C.</HI> 3.</NOTE> <HI>Theodorit</HI> &s;ays, that the Divine <HI>Meletius,</HI> being de&s;irous that there &s;hould be no difference about the primacy, made this offer, <HI>viz.</HI> that they might govern in common, and feed the Flocks as one man; but <HI>Paulinus</HI> did not accept it, and it was referr'd to <HI>Sapor,</HI><NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg">Cap. <HI>3.</HI> ibid.</NOTE> who was appointed by the Emperor <HI>Gratian</HI> to take care that the Law, which his Maje&s;ty had made for re&s;toring the Bi&s;hops, whom <HI>Valens</HI> ejected, &s;hould be duly executed, and <HI>Sapor</HI> adju&s;ted their juri&s;dictions apart. I &s;hall &s;tay here a little, and ob&s;erve, the thing it &s;elf is very plain, <HI>viz.</HI> That the &s;eparation which we find to have been in the Church of <HI>Antioch</HI> and Anti-communion, was not made by the re&s;pective parties, upon the account of He|re&s;ie in either of the Bi&s;hops; &s;ince there is nothing more cer|tain, than that <HI>Meletius</HI> and <HI>Paulinus</HI> were Orthodox at that time: for if they had not, but Here&s;ie had been the bar to their union, care would have been taken, upon the accommodation, for the removing of it; otherwi&s;e the Schi&s;m mu&s;t have remain'd as before, becau&s;e the Here&s;ie, the occa&s;ion of it, would have remain'd; if <HI>Paulinus</HI> had not taken up that error which <HI>Lucifer Calaritanus</HI> afterwards improv'd into a rupture in the Church, and believ'd that <HI>Meletius</HI> ought not to be own'd as a true Bi|&s;hop, nor communicated with, becau&s;e he was ordain'd by the <HI>Arian</HI> Bi&s;hops: it is well known that <HI>Lucifer</HI> was never cen&s;ur'd as an Heretick for it, but only as a Schi&s;matick. Since then both were Orthodox, the Schi&s;m mu&s;t have remain'd, or never have been, or &s;ome other ground, be&s;ides their Here&s;y, is to be a&s;&s;ign'd for it. And if Orthodoxy alone, as &s;uch, would have legiti|mated a Communion with them, they would have been as law|full Bi&s;hops before the &s;tipulation, as after it. And yet Doctor <HI>Hody</HI> very frequently in&s;i&s;ts, and with a great deal of a&s;&s;urance, (as I have before ob&s;erv'd) that tho&s;e many Catholicks, whom he owns to have rejected &s;uch Bi&s;hops as po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ed Sees in injury to others then alive, and who were their rightful Bi&s;hops, might, and would have receiv'd them, if they had been Orthodox, <HI>i. e.</HI> they had not been <HI>Arians:</HI> for if &s;o, what made this di&s;tur|bance in <HI>Antioch?</HI> Or, what ground was there for a Church debate about it? Or, what pleas had the Orthodox there for their not communicating before, as afterwards, but the &s;uppo&s;ed unju&s;t, and therefore Schi&s;matical po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ions of the oppo&s;ite
<PB N="50" REF="40"> Bi&s;hops? Or, how were things alter'd, upon the common agree|ment, and Church determination? Or, how will the Doctor go about to make any one believe, (who is not re&s;olv'd afore|hand to be of his Party) that &s;ince the <HI>Arians,</HI> upon their Ordinations into full Sees, erected and continued a Succe&s;&s;ion again&s;t the Catholick Succe&s;&s;ion, in the &s;ame notorious and vi&s;ible manner as the <HI>Novatians</HI> and <HI>Donati&s;ts</HI> did; tho&s;e <HI>Arians</HI> were not al&s;o to be rejected for their Schi&s;m in &s;o doing, though they had no Here&s;y, as he mu&s;t own the Catholick Church had all along refu&s;ed to own and Communicate with the&s;e <HI>Donati&s;ts</HI> and <HI>Novatians,</HI> purely and &s;olely upon the account of their Schi&s;m? Neither is any thing more &s;ure, than that this Anti-communion in <HI>Antioch,</HI> was al&s;o founded upon the &s;ame bottom of Schi&s;m on the one or the other &s;ide, in the appre|hen&s;ion, at lea&s;t, of the two re&s;pective Bi&s;hops, and their peo|ple: And <HI>Paulinus</HI> either pleaded his Po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion, to which <HI>Me|letius</HI> could not &s;ubmit, becau&s;e, though he was ab&s;ent at the time of <HI>Paulinus</HI>'s enthroning, he was alive, and had not re&s;ign'd, and was then pre&s;ent and demanded his Right. Or el&s;e <HI>Paulinus</HI> might plead that <HI>Meletius</HI> was Ordain'd by <HI>Arian</HI> Bi|&s;hops: But none of the&s;e pleas could amount to any more than Schi&s;m: for, in all other re&s;pects, the Competitors were un&s;u&s;pected, and believed to be as entire and untainted, as in their faith.</P>
<P N="2">2. We have here an In&s;tance of the Churches Right and Pra|ctice in di&s;po&s;ing of Bi&s;hopricks, and making them more or fewer, as her prudence &s;hall &s;ee occa&s;ion, for the better &s;ervice of the Faith: And the &s;ame City of <HI>Antioch,</HI> which had but one Bi&s;hop ever &s;ince the Believers were fir&s;t <HI>call'd Chri&s;tians</HI> there upon St. <HI>Peters</HI> preaching to them in the Acts of the Apo&s;tles, hath now two Bi&s;hops lawfully, and truly, con&s;ti|tuted, (be&s;ides the fal&s;e ones of the<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Theod. H. E. l. <HI>5.</HI> c. <HI>3.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Arian</HI> and <HI>Apollinarian</HI> Sects, which &s;he then al&s;o had) to continue &s;o long as <HI>Paulinus</HI> and <HI>Meletius</HI> live: And when one dies, or other ways lawfully quits his Charge, the remainer is to be Bi&s;hop alone, and their di&s;tricts, before a part, are then to be blended again, and united, and the &s;ingle Succe&s;&s;ion to continue, unle&s;s the Churches wi&s;dom, upon &s;ome emergency, &s;ees fit to make a further alteration.<NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg"><HI>An</HI> 378. <HI>p.</HI> 393</NOTE> <HI>Baronius</HI> &s;ays, that this &s;ettlement was made by a Council: But he produces no Authority for it: and I am &s;o much the more inclinable to think he had none, becau&s;e<NOTE N="&Verbar;" PLACE="marg">H. E. Secul. <HI>4.</HI> Part. <HI>1.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Natalis Alexander</HI> mentions
<PB N="51" REF="40"> none in this account of the Synods of that Age, but that the Clergy made it out of Council, &s;eeing their &s;tations out of it qualified them for that performance: Neither hath a Council been alwaies thought nece&s;&s;ary for it; and much le&s;s the Se|cular Arm: For, the piety of <HI>Gratian,</HI> upon his coming to the Empire, did<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Soz. l. <HI>7.</HI> c. <HI>1.</HI> Theod. l. <HI>5.</HI> c, <HI>2.</HI></NOTE> fix tho&s;e Bi&s;hops in their Sees, whom <HI>Valens</HI> had bani&s;hed, and <HI>Meletius</HI> among the re&s;t, had the benefit of his Edict: But it was only a fixing them in their own Sees, to which they had a Church Right before; and <HI>Gratian</HI> con|firm'd indeed 'but, otherwi&s;e did not meddle with the Di|&s;tricts nor the Bi&s;hops, which the Church authority had a&s;&s;ign'd. And though <HI>Baronius</HI> is very angry with <HI>Theodorit</HI> (the other Hi&s;torians &s;ay nothing of it) for repre&s;enting <HI>Sapor,</HI> the Emperor's Prefect, to have appointed <HI>Paulinus</HI> and <HI>Meletius</HI> their di&s;tinct Juri&s;dictions; I cannot &s;ee what rea&s;on <HI>Baronius</HI> had for it, as if the Prefect had invaded the Churches right. For, the Church had before, by con&s;ent of all Parties, &s;etled the Government of the City in them both: And his Arbitration, which a&s;&s;ign'd each of them a Di&s;trict apart, is &s;o far from imploying an original antecedent Right in the Civil Power, derived unto <HI>Sapor,</HI> at that time, from the Empire, for that one end, that it is thence very plain, he acted only by that power which the Church gave him, when &s;he made him Arbitrator: And his Deci&s;ion had no other effect than that which &s;he promi&s;ed to receive, and &s;tand by: Though it hath happen'd that the Empire has divided a Di&s;trict, upon its own Motion, for its own rea&s;ons: It is well known that the Emperor<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Praefat. ad Novel. <HI>11.</HI> &amp; Novel. <HI>130.</HI> cap. <HI>4.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Ju&s;tinian</HI> took <HI>Ju&s;tinianaea Prima</HI> out of the Dioce&s;s of <HI>The&s;&s;alonica,</HI> becau&s;e it was the City of his birth: And it is reckon'd among the Churches that are <HI>Autocefalous,</HI> by<NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg">In can. <HI>2.</HI> con<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">. gen. Con&s;tantine.</NOTE> <HI>Bal&s;amon:</HI> But he is not to be conceiv'd to have done this without the Churches con&s;ent: E&s;pecially not without the allowance of the Primate of <HI>The&s;&s;a|lonica,</HI> who&s;e previous concurrence, and not the Emperors au|thority a<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">one, legitimated the di&s;trict, and its Bi&s;hop: Neither could the Bi&s;hops of Chri&s;tendom have communicated with him, upon other terms.</P>
<P>It may be here objected, that this &s;ettlment of two Bi&s;hops in one City, with di&s;tinct Juri&s;dictions in it, at the &s;ame time, is not agreeable with a very ancient, and univer&s;ally receiv'd, Canon of the Church, which hath order'd, that there &s;hould be no more than one Bi&s;hop, at one time, in a City: But
<PB N="52" REF="41"> this will readily appear to be a mi&s;take: For that Canon was &s;o phra&s;ed in compliance with the general cu&s;tom of the Church in tho&s;e days, according to which, every City had a Bi&s;hop;<NOTE PLACE="marg">Can. <HI>12.</HI> Apo&s;t. Can. <HI>8.</HI> Conc. <HI>1.</HI> Nic. &amp; abili &s;epius.</NOTE> in &s;o much, that a City and a Di&s;trict were <HI>Syno|nimous;</HI> and the only meaning and importance of it, is, that one Bi&s;hop &s;hall not interfere upon another, much more in|trude, but keep his own &s;tation and bounds which are &s;et, and limited him upon Church Terms, whether they contein more or le&s;s, and con&s;i&s;t of half a City, or a whole one, or of more Cities than one. Neither can it, with any congruity of rea&s;on, be apprehended, that &s;uch a tract of ground, with &s;uch boundaries, inhabited by &s;uch a people, and ve&s;ted with &s;uch priviledges, mu&s;t nece&s;&s;arily make one Dioce&s;s and no more; and have but one Bi&s;hop in it, upon what emer|gencies &s;oever: E&s;pecially, &s;ince no one pleads our Saviour's In&s;titution for the limitation of it. Surely, as <HI>Paulinus</HI> and <HI>Me|letius</HI> were con&s;tituted Bi&s;hops of <HI>Antioch,</HI> and re&s;ided and exerci&s;ed Juri&s;diction there at the &s;ame time, the &s;ame Autho|rity might have taken in the <HI>Arian</HI> and <HI>Apollinarian</HI> Bi&s;hops, who had, at the &s;ame time, &s;eated them&s;elves there, and made the two Bi&s;hops four, if the latter would have laid a&s;ide their Here&s;y, and come in upon Church terms; and if the doing of it had been found truly &s;erviceable to the Church of God: Hence two Bi&s;hops have been in one and the &s;ame City in good times: Of which abundance of In&s;tances may be given; and none of them were thought to violate the Rule.<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>L.</HI> 3. <HI>c.</HI> 2. <HI>num.</HI> 418, 419.</NOTE> <HI>Antonio: de Dominis,</HI> Arch|bi&s;hop of <HI>Spalato,</HI> hath excellently well given the Churchs &s;en&s;e of it in the&s;e words:<NOTE PLACE="marg">Canon Nicaenus excludit duos E|pi&s;copos inter &s;e divi&s;os, non au|tem duos in &s;e conjunctos, &amp; in uno regimine amice copulatos.</NOTE> <HI>The Nicene Canon</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>exclud's two Bi&s;hops divided among them&s;elves but not two conjoyn'd in them&s;elves, and friendly coupled in the &s;ame Government:</HI> I do further ob&s;erve, in the third place.</P>
<P N="3">3. That this &s;ettlement in <HI>Antioch</HI> was not made, but upon an antecedent previous con&s;ent, and interpretative, if not ex|pre&s;s re&s;ignation, not only of <HI>Paulinus</HI> and <HI>Meletius,</HI> who were the pre&s;ent actual Pretenders (and the right to the whole City was certainly in one of them) but of all the Clergy;<NOTE N="&Verbar;" PLACE="marg">Socr. l. <HI>5.</HI> c. <HI>5.</HI></NOTE> <HI>i. e.</HI> the Presbyters that were pretenders in rever&s;ion, and might expect the Chair by a vacancy:<NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg">Soz. l. <HI>7.</HI> c. <HI>3.</HI></NOTE> Our Hi&s;torians add, that all this was ratified by Oath between the Parties. And here Doctor <HI>Hody</HI> may find, that the&s;e two Bi&s;hops in the Church of God, than whom there were not any that have been more faithful
<PB N="53" REF="41"> and <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">couragious in it during <HI>Constantius</HI>'s per&s;ecution; or that have received more, and more honorable Eulogies for it; the&s;e (I &s;ay) together with the re&s;t of the Orthodox in the City of <HI>Antioch,</HI> were not of his mind, when he thus<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>Pag,</HI> 7.</NOTE> declares: <HI>Other men I mu&s;t leave to their own ways of thinking; for my part, I cannot imagine that the welfare and pro&s;perity of mankind does depend upon &s;o tickli&s;h and uncertain a point as that of an ejected Governor's con&s;ent: That if he refu&s;es to give his con&s;ent, all the Church must be made a Sacrifice to him.</HI> For, it is very mani|fe&s;t, that this Church of <HI>Antioch</HI> was in great di&s;traction, and mu&s;t in cour&s;e have been &s;acrificed by its Schi&s;ms, which always bring ruine, if it had not been prevented by this ami|cable con&s;ent: And our great <HI>Meletius</HI> is, on the one hand, an immediate Pre&s;ident to all ejected Governors; and they are taught by this his practice, that it is their duty, to recede from their own per&s;onal rights, upon a pro&s;pect of the Church's ju&s;t &s;ett|lement by it: And <HI>Paulinus</HI>'s practice on the other hand, teaches all Intruders, that the way to the Church's ju&s;t &s;ettlement, upon a Schi&s;m made by them, and to prevent it being made a <HI>Sa|crifice,</HI> is the <HI>ejected Governor's con&s;ent:</HI> To be &s;ure nothing was done in this affair at <HI>Antioch</HI> without <HI>Meletius</HI>'s knowledg and appro|bation: And no body but the unthinking Doctor can conceive, that, &s;ince Chri&s;t has &s;o ordered the <HI>Oeconomy</HI> of his Govern|ment, that it is placed in the hands of particular Bi&s;hops, &s;eated in their re&s;pective Di&s;tricts, for the pre&s;ervation of its peace and unity; it can be wre&s;ted out of their hands irregularly, and without their con&s;ent, or, which mu&s;t be the &s;ame thing, contrary to Chri&s;t's di&s;po&s;al and <HI>Oeconomy,</HI> at the pleasure of the Prince, or one or more Bi&s;hops, or any <HI>Irre&s;i&s;tible Party,</HI> and the Church, <HI>i. e.</HI> its con&s;titution and peace not to be &s;acrified by it, &s;ince all is directly laid open to every pretender that is &s;ucce&s;sful.</P>
<P>It is true, that <HI>Meletius</HI>'s ju&s;t care for this Churches peace, and even <HI>Paulinus</HI>'s, had not its de&s;ign'd effect; and the difference in <HI>Antioch</HI> was palliated, not cured, by it: For upon <HI>Meletius</HI>'s death, <HI>Flavianus</HI> a&s;cended his Throne, whil&s;t <HI>Paulinus</HI> was alive; and &s;everal of the Believers hatred to him for it was &s;uch, in that he broke his Oath, and the peace of the Church, that they refu&s;ed to communicate with him, and made &s;eparate<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Socr. l. <HI>5.</HI> c. <HI>15,</HI> Soz. l. <HI>7</HI> c. <HI>11. 15</HI></NOTE> Conventions: And <HI>Paulinus</HI> died a little after; which made the breach wider,<NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg">Ibid.</NOTE> <HI>Evagrius</HI> being con&s;ecrated in his room:
<PB N="54" REF="42"> and thus both the Sects were revived, and continued as at the fir&s;t: and held oppo&s;ite communion; even when<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Soz. l. <HI>5.</HI> c. <HI>15.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Evagrius</HI> was dead: (which happn'd a little after) by rea&s;on of the irre|concileable aver&s;ion, which <HI>Paulinus</HI>'s party retain'd towards <HI>Flavianus,</HI> tho' <HI>Evagrius</HI> had no Succe&s;&s;or: and the<NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg">S<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">crat. ib<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">d. &s;upra.</NOTE> <HI>Ea&s;tern</HI> and <HI>We&s;tern</HI> Churches were concern'd, and became Parties in it. But notwith&s;tanding, God's good providence &s;o ordered it, that <HI>Evagrius</HI>'s death became a &s;tep and means to that rightful Uni|on, which was wrought<NOTE N="&Verbar;" PLACE="marg">Theodor l. <HI>5.</HI> c. <HI>23.</HI></NOTE> among them in tract of time; and an end was put to that Schi&s;m which began in the latter end of <HI>Constantines</HI> Reign, upon the removal of <HI>Eu&s;tathius:</HI> and the <HI>Eu&s;ebians</HI> erecting their &s;ucce&s;&s;ion upon it, and continued near an hundred years:<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>An.</HI> 381.</NOTE> <HI>Baronius</HI> &s;ays it la&s;ted till the y<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ar 408. when Pope <HI>Innocent</HI> put an end to it, with &s;ome difficulty. But<NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg"><HI>P.</HI> 437.</NOTE> <HI>Theodorus Lector</HI> &s;ays, it continued an hundred years after <HI>Eu&s;tathius</HI>'s death: if &s;o; it la&s;ted fifty years, at lea&s;t, after <HI>Innocents</HI> time; though, &s;trictly &s;peaking, the Schi&s;m, which began upon <HI>Eu&s;tathius</HI>'s removal, ended in <HI>Meletius</HI>'s lawful po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion of the <HI>Antiochian</HI> See: <HI>Eu|stathius</HI> re&s;igning unto him, when he had declar'd for the <HI>Nicene</HI> Faith; he being the la&s;t of the <HI>Sophronian</HI> Succe&s;&s;ion, and the immediate lawful Bi&s;hop of <HI>Antioch</HI> to <HI>Eustathius:</HI> for, by this time the <HI>Eu&s;ebians</HI> had pull'd off their Mask; (of which I am to give an account at large in the &s;equel of this Tract) and tho' they did not cea&s;e to place their own Bi&s;hops in <HI>Antioch,</HI> upon <HI>Meletius</HI>'s di&s;appointing them, by his turning Catholick, and re|ceiving that Chair in a ju&s;t Succe&s;&s;ion, upon true Church Terms; yet they did not continue them there, as Succe&s;&s;ors to <HI>Sophronius,</HI> (who was the fir&s;t Bi&s;hop brought in upon <HI>Eu&s;tathius</HI>) and law|ful Po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ors, by rea&s;on of <HI>Eu&s;tathius</HI>'s abdication: but as <HI>Exo<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">|koutian Arians;</HI> in which Sect they founded a new Succe&s;&s;ion, upon <HI>Meletius</HI>'s depo&s;ition and bani&s;hment: out of which the <HI>Eu&s;ebians,</HI> who had a&s;&s;erted the eternal generation, as the <HI>Ho|mo&Taurus;&s;ians,</HI> who abated nothing of the <HI>Nicene</HI> explication, were alike excluded. Now after this Schi&s;m thus ended, the &s;ame depo&s;ition and bani&s;hment of <HI>Meletius</HI> occa&s;ion'd another: for in his ab&s;ence, <HI>Lucifer Calaritanus</HI> coming to <HI>Antioch,</HI> and find|ing it without a Bi&s;hop, upon a pre&s;umption, &s;urely, that <HI>Mele|tius</HI> was then dead, he enthron'd <HI>Paulinus</HI> in that Chair: where|upon, the <HI>Eu&s;tathians,</HI> who had adher'd to <HI>Eu&s;tathius</HI> their Bi&s;hop, and to <HI>Meletius</HI> as his true Succe&s;&s;or, divided them&s;elves into two parties, but went under the name of <HI>Eustathians;</HI> and the one
<PB N="55" REF="42"> communicated under <HI>Meletius,</HI> and the other under <HI>Paulinus,</HI> when both were Orthodox; till, &s;ome time after, <HI>Meletius</HI> and <HI>Paulinus</HI> accommodated the bu&s;ine&s;s between them: and though the Schi&s;m return'd, and was continu'd after their deaths, it did not la&s;t very long; as I have &s;hew'd in the foregoing Paragraph.</P>
<P>Thus our good God, by vertue of his promi&s;e once made to his Church, always pre&s;erves a due &s;ucce&s;&s;ion, by the means of &s;ome choice men, whom he rai&s;es up for that purpo&s;e: and his wi&s;dom finds a way by which her di&s;ent<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ons are overul'd, not|with&s;tanding the <HI>Schi&s;ms</HI> and <HI>Here&s;ies</HI> which <HI>mu&s;t be,</HI> i. e. though the lu&s;ts and revenge of men will always &s;o far prevail, as to rai&s;e and continue them for a while; (for thence their nece&s;&s;ity comes) <HI>and the Gates of Hell &s;hall not prevail again&s;t her.</HI></P>
<P>Having in the third Paragraph preceeding, produced <HI>Theo|dorus</HI>'s authority to prove a farther continuance of the <HI>Eu&s;tathian</HI> &s;eparation, than &s;ome men have allow'd, I do not think fit to di&s;mi&s;s him &s;o: but &s;hall rea&s;&s;ume him, to make good a point, which will be of greater concern, and bring more advantage not only to the pre&s;ent &s;ubject, but even to our common Chri&s;tianity: for &s;ince he<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Collect an. l. <HI>2,</HI> in Ini<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">i<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">. <GAP DESC="foreign">.</NOTE> tells us, that the <HI>Eu&s;tathians</HI> &s;<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">pa|rated, and held communion a part, by rea&s;on <HI>Eu&s;tathius</HI> their Bi&s;hop, who was wrongfully remov'd from the <HI>Antiochian</HI> See; and the &s;eparation continued an hundred years after <HI>Eu&s;tathius</HI>'s death; it is hence as plain as any thing needs be; at lea&s;t, it hath as much authority as the Hi&s;torian can give it; that the &s;eparate communion, which the <HI>Eu&s;tathians</HI> fir&s;t held, was not made upon the account of <HI>Sophronius</HI>'s <HI>Ariani&s;m,</HI> or his Succe&s;&s;ors; but becau&s;e they were brought into <HI>Eu&s;tath<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">us</HI>'s See, when he was lawfully po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ed, and fill'd it upon Church Terms, and it was not ju&s;tly voided: tho' the <HI>Eustathians</HI> &s;eparated, the <HI>Sophronians</HI> were the Schi&s;maticks, and had the guilt of it: but this will be hence prov'd with greater and more notorious conviction, from the continuance of the Schi&s;m: (it matters not whether it was one and the &s;ame) for though &s;ome have mi&s;took, and repre&s;ented <HI>Sophronius,</HI> and his Succe&s;&s;ors in <HI>Antioch,</HI> down to <HI>Meletius,</HI> as <HI>Arian</HI> Hereticks; and tho&s;e that &s;ay, the <HI>Eustathians</HI> &s;eparated from them for that rea&s;on, may have a pretence for their opinion; none ever pretended that <HI>Paulinus,</HI> and the re&s;t of the Bi&s;hops of <HI>Antioch,</HI> from his time, to the time of the continuance of that &s;eparation, which a Moiety of the <HI>Eu&s;tathians</HI> made from them,
<PB N="56" REF="43"> and la&s;ted, according to <HI>Theodorus,</HI> till an hundred years after <HI>Eustathius</HI>'s death; the&s;e Bi&s;hops, I &s;ay, were never &s;u&s;pected by any to be <HI>Arians;</HI> and it was alone upon the account of <HI>Paulinus</HI>'s a&s;&s;uming <HI>Meletius</HI>'s Chair whil&s;t he was alive, and his Succe&s;&s;ors continuing the inju&s;tice, or the <HI>Eu&s;tathians</HI> &s;uppo&s;ing it to be continued, which occa&s;ion'd the foremention'd Moiety of them to make a &s;eparate Congregation in <HI>Antioch,</HI> and refu&s;e to com|municate with them.</P>
<P><HI>Theodorit</HI><NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">L. <HI>5.</HI> c. <HI>23.</HI> H. E.</NOTE> tells us (and he alone of our Hi&s;torians) that <HI>Paulinus</HI> a&s;&s;ign'd and con&s;ecrated <HI>Evagrius</HI> for his Succe&s;&s;or a little before he died, and by his &s;ingle hands, without his Brethren: which, if true, adds a great deal to the di&s;advantage of them both: e&s;pecially in regard to their fal&s;ne&s;s to their Oaths and Compact: as men once dipt in Schi&s;m are hardly brought again to a con&s;i|&s;tency and integrity: tho' <HI>Baronius</HI> is of the opinion, that <HI>Theo|dorit</HI> mi&s;took this circum&s;tance; and that he might be inclinable to look with le&s;s diligence into that affair, by rea&s;on of the great affection, even to partiality, which he all along &s;hew'd unto <HI>Flavianus.</HI> And<NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg">De Eccle&s;. Antioch. Schi&s;m.</NOTE> <HI>Natalis Alexander</HI> (who &s;eems to be the more ex|qui&s;ite and unbia&s;&s;ed Hi&s;torian of the two) relates it diffidently as to its Truth: but no one que&s;tions <HI>Theodorit</HI>'s relation in ano|ther<NOTE N="&Verbar;" PLACE="marg"><HI>L.</HI> 5. <HI>c.</HI> 9.</NOTE> place, where he tells us, that the Fathers in the &s;econd general Council, held at <HI>Con&s;tantinople,</HI> did approve and receive <HI>Flavianus</HI>'s ordination and &s;ucce&s;&s;ion to <HI>Meletius,</HI> contrary to their Settlement at <HI>Antioch;</HI> which recommends his Cau&s;e to the World, with much &s;eeming advantage. Now, becau&s;e the Reader may ju&s;tly require &s;ome &s;atisfaction concerning it, I &s;hall give him <HI>Gregory Nazianzens</HI>'s account of it, who tells us,
<Q><TEXT LANG="eng grc">
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="narrative">
<P>That <HI>Flavianus</HI>'t Cau&s;e was carried in the Synod by the ju|nior Bi&s;hops,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Carm. de vita ejus a num. <HI>121.</HI> ad num. <HI>158.</HI> Ed. Pari&s;.</NOTE> who made the greater number, and over|rul'd the elder; and &s;o far prevail'd upon them, that they made them on their &s;ide, through their rio|tous, in&s;olent and clamorous proceed|ings and behaviour.</P>
<PB N="57" REF="43">
<P>That the&s;e young|er Bi&s;hops, who carried it, in the Synod, again&s;t <HI>Pau+linus,</HI> were a &s;ort of men of a tem|porary Faith, who had ran with the Times, accordingly as they were &s;uc|ce&s;sful; when the Orthodox were per|&s;ecuted, in the Reign of <HI>Valens,</HI> they were <HI>Arians;</HI> when <HI>Gratian</HI> and <HI>Theodo&s;ius</HI> protected the Catholicks, and would permit none to enjoy their Bi|&s;hopricks, unle&s;s they would &s;ub|&s;cribe the Doctrine of <HI>one Sub&s;tance,</HI> they were <HI>Homo&Taurus;&s;i|ans.</HI></P>
<P>That their mu|table complexion in&s;tructed them likewi&s;e to receive any Bi&s;hop, if a Po&s;&s;e&s;&s;or, without any regard to his Church Right, and lawful Succe&s;&s;ion; but it was all one to them if <HI>Paulinus Flavianus,</HI> or <HI>Euzoius</HI> a <HI>Schi&s;matick, Ho|mou&s;ian</HI> or an <HI>Ari|an,</HI>
<PB N="58" REF="44"> pre&s;ided over them in their a&s;|&s;emblies, and wor|&s;hip, as the head of their communion; they could receive two Bi&s;hops in the &s;ame di&s;trict, and at the &s;ame time, tho' they oppo&s;ed one another, and the Churches Law.</P>
<P>Our excellent Bi|&s;hop, out of his a|bundance of zeal for Peace and Truth, exhorts them To take better advice of him, and lay down their pretended pleas in behalf of <HI>Flavi|anus,</HI> and receive <HI>Paulinus,</HI> who is the rightful Bi&s;hop of <HI>Antioch,</HI> he hav|ing been placed there together with <HI>Meletius,</HI> and ap|pointed for the &s;ole Bi&s;hop in that Ci|ty, upon his death, by the con&s;ent of all the Clergy, who then were, or could be &s;uppo&s;ed to be, concern'd in that affair, and the pre|&s;ent Po&s;&s;e&s;&s;or; and not to make a new Bi&s;hop, till death,
<PB N="59" REF="44"> or &s;ome ju&s;t occa|&s;ion, has made the See void, upon Church Terms.</P>
<P>He tells them roundly, That &s;ince <HI>Paulinus</HI> is a right|ful Po&s;&s;e&s;&s;or, and not under the vi&s;i|ble breach of any Church Law, even a general Council has not a right to in&s;pect him, or to but debate his re|moval; much le&s;s to bring in another Bi&s;hop upon him: a full See is a Sa|cred Thing; and none but &s;editious and evil Men will attempt &s;uch things.</P>
<P>He &s;hews them them the &s;everal great inconveniences and de&s;tructive con&s;e|quences which will attend the affecting their de&s;ign upon <HI>Paulinus,</HI> and place <HI>Flavianus</HI> in his Chair: As</P>
<P>That &s;uch a Schi&s;matical action will bring a guilt upon tho&s;e that then commit it, and all &s;uch as in the fu|ture comply with
<PB N="60" REF="45"> it, whom he pities and laments.</P>
<P>That the Faith, and mo&s;t holy and venerable Doctrine of Chri&s;tianity will be hazarded, if not Shipwrack'd by it, and this is &s;o vi&s;ible, that no eye can chu&s;e but &s;ee it.</P>
<P>That the Go|vernment of the Church will fail, and be de&s;troy'd by &s;uch proceed|ings, and anarchy be the effect of it, to the &s;hame and grief of good men.</P>
<P>And after all this, when the good Bi|&s;hop found that his endeavours had no other effect upon them, then to wi|den the Churches breaches, and en|flame their heats and oppo&s;itions; he &s;tir|ring only a Wa&s;pes ne&s;t, and bringing Stones, and new Turmoils upon him|&s;elf, by rea&s;on of it: in the la&s;t place,</P>
<P>He choo&s;es ra|ther to quit the
<PB N="61" REF="45"> Synod and his Bi|&s;hoprick, and live an ob&s;cure private life, then comply with the&s;e unju&s;t, and ungo&s;pel Pro|ceedings.</P>
<P>Upon this, the People, with others, much bemoan'd his
<PB N="62" REF="46"> departure, lamen|ting him as a man that was dead: and &s;olicited him to continue with them, in affecting Ora|tory; As will you leave us, your la|bour in the Lord, when you have brought us to ma|turity? Who &s;hall take care of your charge? Have &s;ome regard to the Work of your Mi|ni&s;try, which of a &s;mall Remnant, is become a great Multitude. But the&s;e things did not move him &s;o far as to in|duce him to change his purpo&s;e; he thought he was more oblig'd to keep him&s;elf clear of their notorious Schi&s;m, in bring|ing two Bi&s;hops in|to one City, of which he apprehen|ded he could not wholly be acquit|ed, if he continued in the Colledge, or not &s;o fully, than to officiate in his Epi&s;copal Function; and cho&s;e rather, upon this &s;eeming competition, to forego the latter, than hazard the di&s;repute, he was to undergo in clo&s;ing, though but in appearance with the former.</P>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 TYPE="translation">
<P>Num. &mdash; <GAP DESC="foreign">,</P>
<P N="137">137. <GAP DESC="foreign">.</P>
<P N="138">138. <GAP DESC="foreign">.</P>
<P N="139">139. <GAP DESC="foreign">.</P>
<P N="142"><PB N="57" REF="43">142.<NOTE PLACE="marg">Vid. Jac<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">. Billi Schol. in num. <HI>123.</HI></NOTE> <GAP DESC="foreign">.</P>
<P N="143">143. <GAP DESC="foreign">,</P>
<P N="144">144. <GAP DESC="foreign">.</P>
<P N="146">146. <GAP DESC="foreign">.</P>
<L><GAP DESC="foreign"></L>
<L><GAP DESC="foreign"></L>
<L><GAP DESC="foreign"></L>
<L><GAP DESC="foreign">,</L>
<L><GAP DESC="foreign"></L>
<L><GAP DESC="foreign">.</L>
<L><GAP DESC="foreign">,</L>
<L><GAP DESC="foreign">.</L>
<P N="122"><PB N="58" REF="44">122. <GAP DESC="foreign">.</P>
<P N="130">130. &mdash; <GAP DESC="foreign">,
<Q><LG>
<L><GAP DESC="foreign"></L>
<L><GAP DESC="foreign"></L>
<L><GAP DESC="foreign"></L>
<L><GAP DESC="foreign">;</L>
<L><GAP DESC="foreign">,</L>
</LG>
<LG>
<L><GAP DESC="foreign"></L>
<L><GAP DESC="foreign"></L>
<L><GAP DESC="foreign"></L>
<L><GAP DESC="foreign">.</L>
</LG></Q></P>
<P N="133">133. <GAP DESC="foreign"></P>
<L><GAP DESC="foreign">,</L>
<L><GAP DESC="foreign"></L>
<P N="123"><PB N="59" REF="44">123. <GAP DESC="foreign">.</P>
<P N="131"><GAP DESC="foreign">,</P>
<P><GAP DESC="foreign">.</P>
<P N="132"><PB N="60" REF="45">132. <GAP DESC="foreign">.</P>
<P N="147">147. <GAP DESC="foreign">.</P>
<P N="137">137. <GAP DESC="foreign">.</P>
<P N="138">138. <GAP DESC="foreign">.</P>
<P N="133">133. &mdash;<GAP DESC="foreign">.</P>
<P N="135">135. <GAP DESC="foreign">,
<PB N="61" REF="45">
<Q><LG>
<L><GAP DESC="foreign">.</L>
<L><GAP DESC="foreign">.</L>
<L><GAP DESC="foreign">,</L>
<L><GAP DESC="foreign"></L>
<L><GAP DESC="foreign">.</L>
</LG></Q></P>
<P N="149">149. <GAP DESC="foreign">.</P>
<P N="151">151. <GAP DESC="foreign">,</P>
<P N="152">152. <GAP DESC="foreign">.
<Q><LG>
<L><GAP DESC="foreign"></L>
<L><GAP DESC="foreign">.</L>
<L><GAP DESC="foreign">.</L>
<L><GAP DESC="foreign">.</L>
<PB N="62" REF="46">
<L><GAP DESC="foreign">.</L>
<L><GAP DESC="foreign"></L>
<L><GAP DESC="foreign">.</L>
<L><GAP DESC="foreign">.</L>
</LG></Q></P>
<P>&mdash;<GAP DESC="foreign">.</P>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
</TEXT></Q></P>
<PB N="63" REF="46">
<P>I am not ignorant that Doctor <HI>Hody</HI> makes u&s;e of<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Prefat. ad MS. Baroc. The ca&s;e of the Sees, p. <HI>197.</HI></NOTE> St <HI>Gre|gories</HI> Re&s;ignation, to the prejudice, as he thinks, of our pre&s;ent deprived Bi&s;hops: And he urges it as an obligation upon them to re&s;ign al&s;o to their pre&s;ent Intruders and Po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ors: He even, upbraids them becau&s;e they have not done it, as coming &s;hort therein, of the pious and peaceable temper of this mo&s;t exemplary Prelate. But he argues, as he u&s;ually does, upon a mi&s;taken bottom: For,</P>
<P N="1">1. The Doctor ought to prove, e're he makes his Inference from it, that St. <HI>Gregory</HI> was &s;o far exemplary in his Re&s;igna|tion, as that it hath been &s;ince, and is now, a crime not to imitate him in it. Was it not his faylure, to yeild to the pre|&s;ent Emergency, and Re&s;ign? Ought he not, with the other Bi&s;hops, who &s;tood out, to have adher'd to <HI>Paulinus,</HI> again&s;t <HI>Flavianus,</HI> and a&s;&s;erted his Right, which he own'd, not by ab|dicating; but, by continuing in his Chair, and in the exerci&s;e of his Juri&s;diction; &s;o long as he might have done it without &s;in, and he was not di&s;enabled in his per&s;on to do it, by the force of his Enemies? Would he not have done more &s;ervice to the Church of God by it, then by re&s;igning? If every Chri&s;tian Bi&s;hop &s;hould be of his mind, under the &s;ame, or the like, Exigency, what would become of the Unity, Government, the, even, being of the Church of God? He is really, and indi&s;pen&s;ably, imitable in oppo&s;ing <HI>Flavianus,</HI> and not par|taking in the guilt, which he would have nece&s;&s;arily incurr'd, by abetting a Schi&s;matical Po&s;&s;e&s;&s;or, who&s;e Chair was full, upon his Po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion; but might he not have found out a better and more approv'd way of mani<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">e&s;ting his oppo&s;ition to his U&s;urpation, and vindicating his Innocency, then by laying down his Mini&s;tery? He that truly thinks will not &s;ay that St. <HI>Gregory</HI> is imitable in this; but will own that it was one of tho&s;e <HI>naevi</HI> and inperfections, which good and great men have &s;ome times about them. A Bi&s;hop ought not to con&s;ult his quiet, even a more frequent opportunity of &s;aying his prayers, as it is plain<NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg">Ep. <HI>55.</HI> ad Procopium.</NOTE> he did, in laying down his Bi&s;hoprick, when the con&s;titution and peace of the Church are at the &s;take; as he acknowledg'd they were, upon the oppo&s;ition <HI>Paulinus</HI> met with, through the headine&s;s of the junior Bi&s;hops in the Coun+cill of <HI>Con&s;tantinople.</HI> And the<NOTE N="&Verbar;" PLACE="marg"><GAP DESC="foreign">, Carm. de vita ejus. num. <HI>148.</HI></NOTE> complacency which he &s;eems to have taken in a fit of &s;ickne&s;s, which &s;eiz'd him, and ju&s;ti|fied his ab&s;ence from the Synod to <HI>Theodo&s;ius,</HI> though it was
<PB N="64" REF="47"> next unto<NOTE N="&Verbar;" PLACE="marg">Ibid.</NOTE> death, argues &s;omething that was humane in him, and not his vertue. And his Character, upon Doctor <HI>Hody</HI>'s &s;uppo&s;ition, who makes it the effect of his full deliberation, and his vertue can be little le&s;s then that which our Saviour gives the <HI>Hireling</HI> in the Go&s;pel, <HI>Who runs away when the Wolf is coming, and careth not for the Sheep:</HI> The true Shepherds character, <HI>who lays down his life for his Sheep,</HI> will hardly belong unto him. But then,</P>
<P N="2">2. If we allow his Re&s;ignation to be commendable, and to be imitable: Wherein is his ca&s;e, and the ca&s;e of our <HI>deprived</HI> Bi&s;hops &s;o alike, as to be the &s;ame? Is their parity &s;uch, as to admit a true and thorow arguing from the one to the other? If this be a due arguing it will: <HI>viz.</HI> becau&s;e St. <HI>Gregory,</HI> in a kind of de&s;pondency, apprehended that he was unable to di&s;charge his Epi&s;copal, function, by rea&s;on partly, of his bo|dily indi&s;po&s;ition, partly, of his enemies oppo&s;ition to him, who threatned his<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Vid. num. <HI>153, 154, 155.</HI> in carm. de vita &s;ua.</NOTE> deprivation, partly out of his de&s;ire of a private life, re&s;ign'd his See, whereby it became lega<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ly void, and the<NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg">Ibid. num. <HI>130.</HI></NOTE> <HI>People</HI> and <HI>Bi&s;hops</HI> elected another into it; therefore, our pre|&s;ent <HI>deprived</HI> Bi&s;hops ought, in imitation of him, to re&s;ign, upon the <HI>unjust and uncanonical deprivation</HI> of the Secular Arm, or the Majority of a Council, and receive their illegal Bi&s;hops, placed in their own full Sees, by tho&s;e powers. If St. <HI>Gregory</HI> had been in po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion of <HI>Antioch,</HI> as <HI>Paulinus</HI> was; or tho&s;e <HI>Aegyptian</HI> and <HI>Macedonian</HI> Bi&s;hops, whom he<NOTE N="&Verbar;" PLACE="marg">Ibid. num. <HI>153.</HI></NOTE> mentions, had unduly depriv'd him, and brought <HI>Flavianus,</HI> or another Bi&s;hop, into his See, being full, as they brought <HI>Flavianus</HI> into <HI>Antioch,</HI> and St. <HI>Gregory</HI> had re&s;ign'd, and receiv'd them; upon this his example, there might be &s;ome &s;hew of a plea, for the validity of <HI>unju&s;t and uncanonical Deprivations;</HI> and our deprived Bi&s;hops, might be urg'd to re&s;ign likewi&s;e, with an appearance of &s;ome rea&s;on for it, upon St. <HI>Gregory</HI>'s example: But it is altogether unaccountable, that St. <HI>Gregory</HI> &s;hould be urg'd as their Pat<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">e<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">n for it, &s;ince it cannot be prov'd that he would have re&s;ign'd upon &s;uch con&s;iderations; &s;ince his Re&s;ignation was not made upon any &s;uch con&s;iderations; &s;ince we have all the rea&s;on in the world to be|lieve he would not, becau&s;e he cen&s;ur'd and condemn'd &s;uch an intru&s;ion in <HI>Flavianus,</HI> and loaded it with the foule&s;t guilt, as I have above given an account, and may be &s;een<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Ibid. &s;upra.</NOTE> more largely: Did he not refu&s;e to receive him as his Collegue? And the avoiding the Schi&s;m of that action is one rea&s;on of his re&s;igna|tion: And the other old Bi&s;hops, that were overvoted by the
<PB N="65" REF="47"> younger, did not receive <HI>Flavianus,</HI> but made a &s;eparation from them upon it; as it is well known in our Church Story. And all the u&s;e that I know the Doctor can make of this <HI>Constan|tinopolitan</HI> affair, and St. <HI>Gregory</HI>'s Re&s;ignation, is; that, &s;ince St. <HI>Gregory</HI> made an invective again&s;t the Majority of the &s;econd General Council which was held there, and condemn'd it, in that it brought <HI>Flavianus</HI> into a full See, <HI>Paulinus,</HI> the righful Proprietor, being then alive; and for that rea&s;on, among &s;ome others, cho&s;e rather to quit his Bi&s;hoprick, then to &s;eem, by holding it, and communicating with tho&s;e Bi&s;hops, who did it, to countenance, and partake of the &s;in of &s;o vile an action; &s;ince St. <HI>Gregory</HI><NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Epi&s;t. <HI>55.</HI> ad Procop.</NOTE> was &s;o highly offended with the Council for it, and not being able to ma&s;ter his re&s;entment, in the heat of his pa&s;&s;ion, re&s;olved never to come into a Synod more, and ha&s;tily &s;aid, that he never knew one that had a good event. Such a &s;en&s;e had he of the impiety of this proceeding; what then? Therefore, the Prince, the <HI>Mob,</HI> any thing that hath power enough, may without plea of right, deprive a Bi&s;hop, and bring in a Po&s;&s;e&s;&s;or, and the Depriv'd is oblig'd to re&s;ign, and receive, and communicate with him: Surely, a hopeful con&s;equence: But tho' the Doctor has not, we have learn'd to make better u&s;e of the ra&s;h proceedings of the&s;e temporizing young Bi&s;hops, and the Elder's mean compliance with them, which is.</P>
<P>That the Nature and Con&s;titution of the Chri&s;tian Com|monwealth, and the obligation of Obedience to its Deci&s;ions, even tho&s;e that are made in a General Council, do not engage a Chri&s;tian at large, nor yet a Chri&s;tian Officer and Bi&s;hop, who is a Member of that Council, to &s;ubmit unto them upon the forementioned terms: I mean when a pack of pretended Converts, &s;hall, by their number and turbulency, to vindicate thereby their own naughty practices of the &s;ame nature, over|throw a fir&s;t principle, receiv'd from Chri&s;t, together with the incorporation, which he in&s;tituted and founded in his Blood; and erect a fal&s;e Communion under <HI>Peter,</HI> or <HI>Paul,</HI> or <HI>Apollos;</HI> or in oppo&s;ition to them, or any one of them, by de&s;erting the proper Bi&s;hop, or bringing in a fal&s;e Bi&s;hop upon him; &s;o that two Bi&s;hops are in the &s;ame Di&s;trict, at the &s;ame time: Even, the mo&s;t holy of Bi&s;hops have not a right to determine, and oblige, the &s;ubject upon &s;uch terms. And tho' the hundred and fifty, which made this General
<PB N="66" REF="48"> Council at <HI>Con&s;tantinople</HI> (for, notwith&s;tanding that our Hi|&s;torians failing often in our <HI>Chronology,</HI> give us &s;ome occa&s;ion to think this Vote was pa&s;&s;ed in a Council held at <HI>Con&s;tantinople,</HI> &s;ub&s;equent to the other ju&s;t now mentioned, called the third Coun|cil at <HI>Con&s;tantinople,</HI> the<NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg">Vid. Natal. Alexand. hi&s;t. Eccle&s;. &s;ecul. <HI>4.</HI> pars prima. p. <HI>233.</HI></NOTE> contrary is made apparent) I &s;ay, though tho&s;e Bi&s;hops had been Orthodox in their Faith, and un&s;potted in their manners, and had then made the Deci&s;ion; St. <HI>Gregory</HI> had forfeited his Title, <HI>the Divine,</HI> if he had not declar'd a|gain&s;t their proceedings, and the improbity of them; and di&s;|&s;ented from them in the &s;ame manner he hath done.</P>
<P>It is own'd to be the proper work of a General Council to determine the rights of Bi&s;hops, when they fall under debate, and the Bi&s;hops and Clergy of the Neighbourhood cannot do it: And thus the ca&s;es of <HI>Maximus Cynicus,</HI> and St. <HI>Gregory</HI> of <HI>Nazianzum</HI> were adju&s;ted by the &s;ame Council of <HI>Con&s;tanti|nople,</HI> when <HI>Theophilus</HI> of <HI>Alexandria,</HI> and his <HI>Egyptian</HI> Bi&s;hops had con&s;ecrated <HI>Maximus</HI> Bi&s;hop there, upon their own Autho|rity, and Schi&s;matically; and he was ejected upon the Antient Church Rules and Grounds, and <HI>Gregory</HI> fixed in that See: The Synod could no more have &s;ettled them both in it, by bringing the one upon the other, ve&s;ted with the &s;ame rights, to be promi&s;cuou&s;ly exerci&s;ed by both, and in oppo&s;ition to one another&punc; contrary to the antecedent immutable Govern|ment founded in <HI>Chri&s;t</HI><NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>1</HI> Cor. cap. <HI>1.</HI> &amp; 3^d^. Mon videtur ab his exhiberi a Chri&s;to fides, a quibus evacua|tur ejus pa&s;&s;io. corpu&s;&abque; di&s;tra|hitur. Ambro&s;. in funere &s;atyri.</NOTE> <HI>crucified</HI> (for his Cro&s;s reconcil'd us to God, and con&s;tituted his Church and his re&s;pective Bi&s;hops in it, as <HI>Peter</HI> and <HI>Paul:</HI> And the effects of the Cro&s;s are voyded in eluding the one as well as the other) then it could have made its own definition of Faith, in oppo&s;ition to that which was once deliver'd to the Saints: In which ca&s;e all men believe that Chri&s;tians are no ways oblig'd to receive, and &s;ubmit to it; nor to an Angel from Heaven: And, accordingly, the true Church hath adher'd to its proper Bi&s;hops and to its Faith, upon the &s;ame bottom, and by the &s;ame obligations, as I &s;hall &s;hew in the following Chapters: And if a Council does act contrary to a <HI>fir&s;t</HI> Principle, as the Council of <HI>Con|&s;tantinople</HI> (the Majority over ruling) did in the ca&s;e of <HI>Fla|vianus;</HI> the remon&s;trance of a <HI>Gregory Nazianzen,</HI> a <HI>Cyril</HI> of <HI>Jeru&s;alem,</HI> a <HI>Meletius</HI> of <HI>Antioch,</HI> or the like Elder and well grounded Prelates, is notwith&s;tanding, to oblige us, and become our rule, e&s;pecially, again&s;t a more numerous Company of young Divines, and <HI>Latitudinarian</HI> Bi&s;hops, who at fir&s;t betray'd their
<PB N="67" REF="48"> Faith and Obedience by clo&s;ing with Here&s;y and Schi&s;m, and afterwards profe&s;&s;ed <HI>Homo&Taurus;&s;iani&s;m,</HI> to pre&s;erve tho&s;e Bi|&s;hopriks, which their fir&s;t perfidiou&s;ne&s;s had obtain'd. And that rule which Cardinal <HI>Baronius</HI> lays down and propo&s;es;<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>An.</HI> 381 <HI>pag.</HI> 436.</NOTE> <HI>That this Synod of</HI> Con&s;tantinople <HI>may be receiv'd or rejected in its De|terminations, accordingly as it is found to have ob&s;erved it,</HI> is firm and good, and is to be our guid in the like ca&s;es;<NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg">&V;t pote nihil praeterea novi in e&acirc; appo&s;ui&s;&s;ent, &s;ed quod anti|quitus traditum, divinis Scriptu|ris probatum, a veteribus cu&s;to|ditum, &amp; a re|centioribus de|claratum.</NOTE> which re|quires, that nothing which is new be put in the Synods <HI>Determi|nations, but that only which is Anciently deliver'd, prov'd by the Divine Scriptures, pre&s;erved by the ancient Fathers, and declar'd by the latter Doctors.</HI> Though the Learned <HI>Annali&s;t</HI> will be found at another time, to be as unea&s;y under this Rule, as &s;ome others are: neither hath he here made u&s;e of it, but to &s;erve a turn, and thereby overthrow &s;ome Canons, which the <HI>Council</HI> hath made, and he concludes to be innovations; e&s;pecially that one which brings <HI>Con&s;tantinople</HI> too near <HI>Rome</HI> in its Privi|ledges. And we have this advantage by it; that as our Church in her <HI>one and thirtieth Article</HI> hath &s;aid, that <HI>General Councils may erre, and &s;ometimes have erred in things perteining to God,</HI> &s;o a Cardinal of <HI>Rome</HI> hath acknowledg'd the &s;ame. For, &s;urely, <HI>Romes</HI> Univer&s;al Pa&s;tor&s;hip is accounted by him to be among the things that pertain to God. Is it not reputed by the <HI>Romani&s;t</HI> as a fir&s;t Truth, even no le&s;s then an Article of Faith?</P>
<P>And now, I have done with the&s;e five Bi&s;hops, <HI>viz. Eu&s;ta|thius, Meletius, Paulinus, Flavianus</HI> and <HI>Evagrius,</HI> who made great figures in their times; and not only <HI>Antioch,</HI> but the whole Church has been concern'd upon &s;ome Emergencies, which happn'd by rea&s;on of them. I did not think that I &s;hould have in&s;i&s;ted &s;o long here as I have done: But new con&s;iderations &s;till aro&s;e, and I was the more willing to dwell upon them, becau&s;e the Doctor even triumphs, upon the advantages which he thinks he has from them: Though it is upon a bottom, which I have &s;hew'd to be &s;andy all along, but here more particularly: Indeed, each circum&s;tance, throughout the whole Story, &s;trengthens our cau&s;e again&s;t him: And if any one &s;hall &s;o far concern him&s;elf with that, which I have here taken no|tice of, and made my ob&s;ervations upon, as to think it too long; I expect, that the weightine&s;s, and pre&s;ent u&s;efulne&s;s of of the matter &s;hould be &s;ome plea for me: The &s;ubject is comprehen&s;ive enough to make a di&s;tinct Tract, and de&s;erves
<PB N="68" REF="49"> it: I am not ignorant that &s;ome part of it is variou&s;ly related by our Hi&s;torians: E&s;pecially that concerning <HI>Eu&s;tathius:</HI> and if any find fault that I have not clear'd the Story, as he may think I ought to have done, becau&s;e I &s;uppo&s;e &s;ome things, and acquie&s;ce in them, as truth's, which are impugn'd by others; I need not undertake a vindication of my &s;elf upon this account: For, if there were two <HI>Eu&s;tathius's,</HI> the one Bi&s;hop of <HI>Seba&s;tia,</HI> the other of <HI>Antioch;</HI> it is no matter, then, where the former was, when <HI>Meletius</HI> was made Bi&s;hop of <HI>Antioch:</HI> That See could not then be filled by him: Again, if there was but one <HI>Eu&s;tathius,</HI> and he was tran&s;lated from <HI>Seba&s;tia,</HI> or depo&s;ed, and upon repentance admitted to <HI>Beraea,</HI> and thence to <HI>Antioch,</HI> by the Council of <HI>Nicea:</HI> Whether he was afterwards legally depo&s;ed and remov'd from <HI>Antioch,</HI> in <HI>Constantine's</HI> days, or illegally and ineffectually, but, being bani&s;h'd, never appear'd, and his Chair became a <HI>Derelictum;</HI> or, whether he was dead and voyded it that way; or remain'd alive, and appear'd after|wards, but re&s;ign'd his right of <HI>Antioch,</HI> before <HI>Meletius</HI> was righfully po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ed of it: as it is variou&s;ly argu'd and concluded; if, I &s;ay, any of them hold, it mu&s;t &s;ink the Doctor's plea, which he makes with a great deal of a&s;&s;urance: <HI>viz.</HI> That <HI>Eu&s;tathius was invalidly depriv'd, and alive, and exerci&s;ed his function over the</HI> Antiochians, <HI>and had not re&s;ign'd, when</HI> Meletius <HI>was po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ed of that See:</HI> And con&s;equently, <HI>Meletius</HI>'s, coming to <HI>Antioch</HI> is not a competent plea for the Doctor's <HI>Second,</HI> or <HI>Succe&s;&s;or.</HI> And the great and mo&s;t Catholick Principle; <HI>viz. One Bi&s;hop at one time, in one and the &s;ame District,</HI> is not vio|lated through <HI>Meletius</HI>'s Example.</P>
</DIV3>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="2" TYPE="chapter">
<HEAD>CHAP. II.</HEAD>
<DIV3 N="1" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. I.</HEAD>
<P>I Come now, in this &s;econd Chapter, according to my de|&s;igned Method, to &s;hew, that during the Reigns of <HI>Con&s;tan|tine</HI> and <HI>Con&s;tantius,</HI> the Empire was not reputed, upon Catho|lick Principles, and by the Catholicks of that time, (or even by mo&s;t of the Hereticks) to be ve&s;ted with a Right to ab|dicate a Bi&s;hop, when a Po&s;&s;e&s;&s;or; and by virtue of &s;uch his Abdication, or Depo&s;ition, to acquit his people of their de|pendance upon him: No, though he was in his per&s;on, rendred uncapable to exerci&s;e his Pa&s;toral Function among them. Nor
<PB N="69" REF="49"> was the &s;aid Secular Power thought to be competent to en|throne a Bi&s;hop, and righfully po&s;&s;e&s;s him of an Epi&s;copal Chair, though it was vacant upon terms which the Church allows, nor could it by virtue of that Po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion enable him to demand obedience of the Officers, and other Believers, within that Di&s;trict; nor to lay an obligation on the &s;aid Officers and Believers, to receive and obey him; it being only the Church hands, that were then believed to be capable of doing this: And further, that if any Emperor, or other incompetent Power, has attempted, and effected &s;uch a thing, and &s;o de|priv'd, or, dipo&s;&s;e&s;s'd a Bi&s;hop; a competent number of the Colledge, or Epi&s;copal Fraternity, and of others Chri&s;tians, that were truly con&s;cientious, did always remon&s;trate upon Go&s;pel principles, and adhere notwith&s;tanding to the righful Bi|&s;hop, and reject the Interloper.</P>
<P>Now, in pur&s;uance of this, I &s;hall begin with <HI>Con&s;tantine</HI> who&s;e principle was a&s;&s;erted and manife&s;ted by him, in the ca&s;e of <HI>Caecilianus</HI> and <HI>Majorinus,</HI> when both of them were ve&s;ted by their &s;everal Parties, and contended for their re&s;pectives rights in the Archbi&s;hoprick of <HI>Carthage;</HI> and the latter call'd the Em|peror in as their Judge; being well a&s;&s;ur'd, that the whole action will be found an undeniable and irrefragable evidence on our &s;ide. For, in this great affair <HI>Constantine</HI> did not &s;tand a neuter, <HI>but di&s;claim'd all right to be a Judge in it;</HI> as what belong'd only to Church-men, and would be an <HI>&V;&s;urpation</HI> upon the Law of God in him, if he &s;hould undertake it. And for the making this appear, I need only &s;tate the ca&s;e, and declare the proceedings upon it, on the Churches, and on the Emperor's &s;ide: Which is this, according to the account that our Church-Hi&s;torians, if St. <HI>Au&s;tin</HI> may be reckon'd among them, have given us of it.<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Vid. Aug. l. de Here&s;. c. <HI>69.</HI> &amp; Brevicul. collationis di. <HI>3.</HI> &amp; Ep. <HI>62.</HI> &amp; l. <HI>3.</HI> contra Cre&s;cen: gramat. c. <HI>28, 29.</HI> Et lib. de &V;nit. Eccle&s;. c. ulti.</NOTE></P>
<P>When <HI>Men&s;urius</HI> Bi&s;hop of <HI>Carthage</HI> dyed, <HI>Caecilianus,</HI> the Arch-deacon of that Church, was elected Bi&s;hop in his room, and con&s;ecrated by <HI>Felix Aptungenten&s;<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">s,</HI> who was a Neighbour Bi&s;hop, (according to the practice of the Church in St <HI>Cyprian</HI>'s days) <HI>Botrus</HI> and <HI>Celeu&s;ius,</HI> two Presbyters that contended for it, being rejected. <HI>Caecilianus,</HI> entring upon his Charge, de|manded the Church Ve&s;&s;els and Ornaments, which <HI>Men&s;urius</HI> left in the hands of the Elders of the Church, when <HI>Maxentius</HI> the Tyrant &s;ent for him to <HI>Rome,</HI> by rea&s;on that he had con|ceal'd <HI>Felix,</HI> a certain Deacon, who had wrote a notable Epi&s;tle
<PB N="70" REF="50"> again&s;t him; but the&s;e Elders refus'd to deliver the Church-goods, or to Communicate with <HI>Caecilianus;</HI> and joyning them|&s;elves with <HI>Botrus</HI> and <HI>Celeu&s;ius,</HI> (who were di&s;contented becau&s;e they mi&s;s'd the Bi&s;hoprick) and <HI>Lucilla,</HI> a rich and potent Widow, whom <HI>Caecilianus</HI> had ju&s;tly cen&s;ur'd when he was Archdeacon: By the concurrence of the&s;e three cau&s;es, <HI>viz.</HI><NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Mulieris ira|cundia peperit, ambitus nutri|vit, avaritia roborarit. As Optatus <HI>&s;peaks</HI> l. <HI>1.</HI> contra Par|men.</NOTE> The wrath of a Woman, the ambition of two Presbyters, and the covetou&s;ne&s;s of the Elders, a great and flagrant Schi&s;m was &s;oon made; which they varni&s;h'd over with a pretence, that <HI>Felix,</HI> who had ordain'd <HI>Caecilianus</HI> was a <HI>Traditor;</HI> they a&s;pers'd <HI>Caecilianus</HI> al&s;o, that their cau&s;e might appear better to the World: And having done this, they called <HI>Secundus Tigi&s;itanus,</HI> the <HI>Primate</HI> of <HI>Numidia,</HI> and Prince of the <HI>Traditors,</HI> and other Bi&s;hops to <HI>Carthage,</HI> who there intruded <HI>Majorinus</HI> into that full See, and condemn'd <HI>Caecilianus,</HI> in a Synod of &s;eventy Bi&s;hops, who all were infa|mous <HI>Traditors:</HI> And it was hence that turbulent Sect, after|wards call'd <HI>Donati&s;ts,</HI> aro&s;e, and di&s;turb'd the Church of God for &s;ome hundreds of years. But they did not re&s;t &s;atisfied in this &s;ettlement, being jealous of <HI>Caecilianus</HI>'s growing power, that he might overtop them, &s;ince he had the Bi&s;hop of <HI>Rome</HI> on his &s;ide, and the a&s;&s;i&s;tance of other potent neighbouring Bi|&s;hops; and, above all, the favour of <HI>Con&s;tantine.</HI> Hereupon they apply them&s;elves to <HI>Anulinus,</HI> the Procon&s;ul in <HI>Africa,</HI> and re|que&s;t him, that he would make their cau&s;e known to the Emperor; which he undertook: And <HI>Con&s;tantine</HI> having receiv'd their Li|bels at his hands; and &s;ome farther appeals in the progre&s;s of this affair, he thence took occa&s;ion to reprove and admoni&s;h them all in the&s;e words,</P>
<P><NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg">Petitis a<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">me in hoc &s;eculo ju|dicium, c&ugrave;m ego ip&s;e Chri&s;ti ju|dicium expe|ctem. Optat l. <HI>1.</HI> adv. Parmen.</NOTE><HI>Ye ask judgement of me in this world, when I my &s;elf may expect the Judgement of Christ.</HI> Meaning, that he him&s;elf was but a Subject of the Churches, and lyable to receive judgment from <HI>Chri&s;t,</HI> by her hands; as it appears by his <HI>Epi&s;tle,</HI> which he wrote to the <HI>Catholick Bi&s;hops</HI><NOTE N="&Verbar;" PLACE="marg">Inter ge&s;ta purgationis Cae|ciliani &amp; Felicis, in fine Op. Optati Ed. Pari&s;.</NOTE> upon the &s;ame occa&s;ion; where the words will be found in the &s;ame &s;en&s;e, tho' <HI>Optatus</HI> hath given us no account of it.</P>
<P><NOTE PLACE="marg">Quia &s;i nunc vera fide voluerint ob&s;equia &s;ancti&s;&s;imae Legi deferre, intelligere poterunt, quantum &s;ibi nutu Dei provi&s;um &s;it. Et hoc quidem Sancti&s;&s;imi Patres, &s;perabam etiam in eis, quibus ingenita est maxima durities animi, po&s;&s;e reprehendi. Sed non profuit apud eos recta dijudicatio, neque in eorum &s;en&s;us in|gre&s;&s;a e&s;t divinitas propitia. Revera enim non immerit&ograve; ab his procul abce&s;&s;erit Chri|&s;ti clementia, in quibus manife&s;t&acirc; luce claret huju&s;modi e&s;&s;e, ut eos a caele&s;ti provi&s;ione exo&s;os cernamus; quae in ip&s;os tanta ve|&s;ania per&s;everat, cum, incredibili arrogan|tia per&s;uadeant &s;ibi, quae nec dici, nec au|diri fas e&s;t, deci&s;centes a recto judicio dato, quo caele&s;ti provi&s;ione meum judicium eos comperi po&s;tulare? Quaevis malignatatis in eorum pectoribus per&s;everat? Qu<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ties a me jam ip&s;o improbi&s;&s;imus additionibus &s;uis &s;unt condigna re&s;pon&s;ione oppre&s;&s;i, qui utique &s;i hoc ante oculos &s;uos habere volui&s;&s;ent, mi|nime hec ip&s;um interpo&s;ui&s;&s;ent. <HI>Meum ju|dicium po&s;tulant, qui ip&s;e judicium Chri&s;ti expecto.</HI> Dico enim (ut &s;e veri|tas habet) Sacerdotum judicium, ita de|bet haberi ac &s;i ip&s;e Dominus re&s;idens ju|dicet. Nihil enim his licet &s;entire, nec aliud judicare, ni&s;i quod Chri&s;ti Magiste|rio &s;unt edocti.</NOTE> <Q>If the&s;e <HI>Donatists</HI> had &s;o pleas'd, they might have known, that <HI>God</HI> had pro|vided in his Law, that the Church only &s;hould judge in the&s;e ca&s;es. And this is &s;o plain, that he hop'd the mo&s;t hard'ned temper might have been made
<PB N="71" REF="50"> &s;en&s;ible of it. But God's favour did not po&s;&s;e&s;s their &s;en&s;es, and that is the rea&s;on why a true determination did them no advantage; and God's mercy de&s;ervedly departed from them; &s;ince it is as mani|fe&s;t as the Sun at noon day, that they hated the provi&s;ion which God, by his Church, hath made in the&s;e ca&s;es: What madne&s;s is it that po&s;&s;e&s;&s;eth 'em, in that, with an incredible arrogance, they think they may do that which may be lawfully neither &s;poke nor heard, and departing from the righful judgment which God has appointed, they require my judgment, together with the Church's? What force of malignity is it which dwells in their brea&s;ts? How often have they been ju&s;t|ly reprov'd by my &s;elf, for the&s;e wicked additions to God's Word in the&s;e ca&s;es? To which, if they had given any, they had not requir'd my judgment, <HI>who my &s;elf expect the Judgment of Chri&s;t:</HI> For I &s;peak (as the truth is) that the judgment of the Prie&s;ts ought to be accounted, as when the <HI>Lord</HI> him&s;elf, re&s;iding, Judgeth.</Q></P>
<P>The mo&s;t Holy Emperor goes on in the &s;ame Epi&s;tle.<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Ibid.</HI> Quod igitur &s;entiunt malign<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> homines, officia Diaboli? Perquirunt Se|cularia, relinquentes caele&s;tia. O rabida furoris audacia! Sicut in cau&s;is Gentilium fieri &s;olet, appellationem interpo&s;uerunt. Quid hi detractatores Legis, qui renuentes caele&s;te judicium, meum putaverunt po&s;tu|landum? Sic &s;en&s;erunt de Chri&s;to Sal|vatore? Ecce tam Proditores l Ecce &s;ine ulla acriore di&s;qui&s;itione ip&s;i per &s;emet pro|diderunt facinora &s;ua! Quid ab ip&s;is &s;en|titur humanitas, qui in ip&s;o Deo immanes pro&s;ilierunt? Nihilominus vos (Fratres chari&s;&s;imi) qui Domini Salvatoris &s;e|quamini viam, patientiam adhibete, data his adhuc optione, quid putant deligendum, ac &s;i eos in ii&s;dem videritis per&s;everare, protinus cum his, quos Dominus dignos cultu &s;uo judicavit, profici&s;cimini, &amp; redite ad proprias &s;edes, meique mementote, ut mei Salvator no&s;ter &s;emper mi&s;ereatur.</NOTE> <Q>What then do the&s;e ma|lignant men favour, but the works of the Devil? They diligently &s;earch after Secu|lar things, and relinqui&s;h the Heavenly. O outragious and daring <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ury! they make appeals, as in the cau&s;es of the <HI>Gentiles!</HI> What do the&s;e undervaluers of the Law, who refu&s;e the Heavenly Judgment, and have deem'd that mine &s;hould be asked? Have they had the&s;e thoughts of Chri&s;t their Saviour? See now the <HI>Proditors!</HI> Behold how them&s;elves have di&s;cover'd their evil deeds, without any further &s;trict &s;earch after them! What civility can be expected from them, who thus rudely have in&s;ulted upon God? But do you (my Brethen) have patience, who follow the ways of our Lord and Saviour,
<PB N="72" REF="51"> and what&s;oever the Bi&s;hops &s;hall fix upon, be &s;ure that you readily comply with them in it, whom <HI>God</HI> hath thought fit to be honour'd by <HI>him.</HI> And return to your proper Sees, and re|member me, that our Saviour may always have mercy upon me.</Q></P>
<P>That which I find prefix'd to the Epi&s;tle ought not to be here omitted; becau&s;e it repre&s;ents the&s;e <HI>Donati&s;ts,</HI> who appeal from the legal Sentence of the Bi&s;hops for the fixing a Bi&s;hop in his Di&s;trict, to be &s;ingular therein; and, which is wor&s;e, to have made the &s;ecular Courts their Pre&s;idents. The words are the&s;e. <HI>Epi&s;tola Imperatoris Constantini; ubi dixit, qui pars Donati, quomodo foren&s;es, &s;ic litigant, ut denuntient &amp; appellent, &amp; Imperatorem de|&s;iderent audire po&s;t Epi&s;copum judicata. The Epi&s;tle of the Emperor</HI> Con&s;tantine, <HI>where he hath &s;aid: tho&s;e that are of the Party of</HI> Do|natus, <HI>like &s;ecular pleaders, do &s;o contend, that they remon&s;trate and appeal, and de&s;ire the Emperor to hear tho&s;e things, which the Bi&s;hop<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> have judg'd before.</HI></P>
<P>And now, &s;ince this wi&s;e, and mo&s;t religious Emperor hath thus amply and pathetically declar'd, that the rights of fixing a Bi&s;hop in his See are in&s;tated on the Bi&s;hops by Chri&s;t him&s;elf; and he brands tho&s;e hat appeal from their judicatures, to the thrones of Princes, <HI>i. e.</HI> from the <HI>heavenly,</HI> to the <HI>Secular</HI> powers, (as he phra&s;es it), a&s;&s;erting a right in the latter to revoke the Church's inve&s;titure and po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion, and place a Succe&s;&s;or upon it: Since the&s;e men (I &s;ay) are characterized by him, as men that have <HI>&s;eared Con&s;ciences,</HI> and de&s;pi&s;e the Law of God, and Chri&s;t; and that are de&s;titute of his Grace and Clemency, with a great deal more to the &s;ame effect, we may neither wonder at, nor cen&s;ure St. <HI>Au&s;tin,</HI> in that he thus &s;peaks of him,<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Sed quia non au&s;us e&s;t Con|&s;tantinus de cau|&s;&acirc; Epi&s;copi judi|care, eam di&s;cu|tiendam atque finiendam Epi&s;|copis delegavit; quod &amp; factum e&s;t in urbe Ro|ma, prae&s;ente Melchiade Epi&s;|copo, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> Ep. <HI>162.</HI></NOTE> <HI>But becau&s;e</HI> Con&s;tantine <HI>dur&s;t not judge of the cau&s;e of a Bi&s;hop,</HI> (viz. <HI>of</HI> Caecilianus) <HI>he a&s;&s;ign'd that Office to be di&s;cu&s;s'd, and ended by the Bi&s;hops; and it was determin'd in the City of</HI> Rome <HI>by</HI> Mel|chiades <HI>its Bi&s;hop, and his Collegues.</HI> An Emperor is no more warranted to inrode and u&s;urp the rights, which <HI>Christ</HI> hath deriv'd, and &s;olely and immutably fix'd on the Bi&s;hops, than the meane&s;t of his Subjects is; but he is &s;ubjected to the Church as well as they. And how can it be conceiv'd that &s;o wi&s;e, religious, and knowing an Emperor as <HI>Con&s;tantine</HI> hath all along &s;hew'd him&s;elf to be, &s;hould dare to do &s;uch a thing? Or why may not a Bi&s;hop &s;ay, that <HI>he dur&s;t not.</HI></P>
<P>But yet, &s;ince the <HI>Donatists</HI> were &s;o &s;tubbornly re&s;olv'd in the
<PB N="73" REF="51"> carrying on their Schi&s;m; and neglectful of their duty to <HI>God</HI> and his <HI>Church,</HI> as to &s;tand by their appeal to the Emperor, after all this; his Princely care of the Church, and that duty incumbent on all Governours to make and continue peace, ac|cordingly as their &s;ecular arm enables them for it, directed him to receive their petition, and to comply &s;o far with it, as to or|der an hearing of their cau&s;e at <HI>Rome</HI> before <HI>Meltiades</HI> (&s;o his name is wrote in <HI>Eu&s;ebius</HI>) its Bi&s;hop, and <HI>Rhetericius, Maternus,</HI> and <HI>Marinus</HI> his Collegues, who were Bi&s;hops in <HI>France,</HI> and fifteen <HI>Italian</HI> Bi&s;hops; commanding <HI>Caecilianus</HI> to appear there, and bring with him ten Bi&s;hops of his own, and ten of the adver&s;e party: of which affair we have an account in <HI>Con&s;tantine</HI>'s Epi&s;tle<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Eu&s;eb. Hi&s;t. Ecc. l. <HI>10.</HI> c. <HI>5.</HI></NOTE> to <HI>Meltiades;</HI> in the beginning of his Epi&s;tle to<NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg">Ibit,</NOTE> <HI>Chre&s;tus</HI> Bi&s;hop of <HI>Syracu&s;e;</HI> and in<NOTE N="&Verbar;" PLACE="marg">Contra Parm. l. <HI>1.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Optatus,</HI> and St. <HI>Au&s;tin.</HI><NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Brevic. Collar. Di&s;t. <HI>3.</HI> Ep. <HI>162.</HI> P&s;. contra par|tem Donati.</NOTE> In which two Epi&s;tles in <HI>Eu&s;ebius,</HI> his Imperial concern for the Church's divi&s;ions, and the noxious con&s;equences of 'em, and his care and zeal for the pre&s;ent compo&s;ing, and future preventing of them, is expre&s;s'd at large, with abundance of piety and di&s;|cretion: But the Bi&s;hops were &s;ole Judges in the Ca&s;e, by vir|tue of their antecedent Commi&s;&s;ion, which they had from <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> their Ma&s;ter: And the Emperor only call'd the Synod, and legi|timated the A&s;&s;embly, by vertue of which Legitimation it be|came civilly legal; and protected their per&s;ons in their per|formances; but <HI>they made the Deci&s;ion according to the Law of God.</HI><NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg">Ep. ad Mel|chidem &s;upra. <GAP DESC="foreign">.</NOTE> And &s;uitably (upon a thorow vindication of <HI>Caecilianus</HI>'s innocence) <HI>Melchiades</HI> concluded to this effect.<NOTE N="&Verbar;" PLACE="marg">Cum con&s;t<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">terit Caecilianum ab iis qui cum Donato venerunt, &s;ecundum profe&s;&s;io|nem &s;uam, non accu&s;ari, nec &agrave; Donato con|victum e&s;&s;e in aliqua parte con&s;titerit &s;ua, Communioni Eccle&s;ia&s;ticae, in i<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">egro &s;tatu, retinendum merito e&s;&s;e cen&s;<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">o.</NOTE> <Q>That &s;ince it appear'd that the <HI>Donati&s;ts</HI> had not accus'd <HI>Caecilianus</HI> as they engag'd to do, and he is not convicted of any one crime, which they arraign'd him of; I think he is de&s;er|vedly to be retain'd in the Eccle&s;ia&s;tical Communion in his whole &s;tate: (That is as a Chri&s;tian, and as a Bi&s;hop.) And he cen&s;ur'd <HI>Donatus</HI><NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Quem totius mali principem invenerat.&mdash; Sanitatis recuperandae optionem liberam caeteris fecit, paratus communicatorias li|teras mittere, etiam iis quos a Majorino ordinatos e&s;&s;e con&s;taret. Ita ut quibu&s;cun|que in locis duo ordinati e&s;&s;ent Epi&s;oopi, quos di&s;&s;entio gemina&s;&s;et, eum confir|mari vellet, qui fui&s;&s;et ordinatus prior, ali<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ri autem eorum plebs alia regenda provideretur. <HI>Augu&s;t. Epi&s;t. 162.</HI></NOTE> as the Chief promo|ter of the Schi&s;m&mdash; as for othe<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">s, he gave them liberty to come into the Church, if they pleas'd; being ready to &s;end <HI>Commu+nicatory</HI> Letters, even to tho&s;e whom <HI>Majori|nus</HI> had ordain'd; and where two Bi&s;hops had been ordain'd in one place, by rea&s;on of the Schi&s;m, he decreed that the Bi&s;hop
<PB N="74" REF="52"> &s;hould be continued and confirm'd in the See, who had been fir&s;t ordain'd; and that another people, who wanted a Gover|nor, &s;hould be a&s;&s;ign'd for the other.</Q></P>
<P>And a Deci&s;ion was made to the &s;ame effect, by the &s;ame au|thority, <HI>i. e.</HI> by the Bi&s;hops only, in the Council held at <HI>Arela|tum,</HI> which <HI>Con&s;tantine</HI> call'd &s;ometime after for that purpo&s;e, upon the continu'd complaints, and re&s;tle&s;s importunities of the <HI>Donati&s;ts,</HI> pretending that they had not had a fair hearing in the former Synod; as it is in the foremention'd Epi&s;tle to<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Eu&s;eb. H. <HI>E.</HI> l. <HI>10.</HI> c. <HI>5.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Chre&s;tus.</HI> The Empire's favor call'd them thither, and order'd <HI>Ablavius,</HI> the then Procon&s;ul of <HI>Africa,</HI> to give every Bi&s;hop his <HI>Tractatoria,</HI><NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg">Ep. ad Ablav. in fine Optat. &s;upra Baron. Annal Anno. <HI>314.</HI> Num. <HI>45.</HI></NOTE> <HI>i. e.</HI> &s;ufficient provi&s;ion for his Journey: But tho' <HI>Con&s;tantine</HI> was there in his own Per&s;on (if we'll take <HI>Eu&s;ebius</HI>'s words for it<NOTE N="&Verbar;" PLACE="marg">De int. Con&s;t. l. <HI>1.</HI> c. <HI>37.</HI></NOTE>) and &s;at amid&s;t the Bi&s;hops, <HI>as a common Bi&s;hop con&s;tituted of God</HI><NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><GAP DESC="foreign">.</NOTE>, and did joyn with them in their Epi&s;copal Acts<NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg"><GAP DESC="foreign">. Ibid.</NOTE>, a&s;&s;i&s;t|ing them in order to peace; yet he did not act judicially among&s;t them (but in that re&s;pect &s;ubjected him&s;elf as became him) nor did he perform the part of a real Bi&s;hop in that Convention: So that the <HI>Donati&s;ts</HI> did afterwards make their appeal from the Council to the Empire<NOTE N="&Verbar;" PLACE="marg">Ibid.</NOTE>, &s;ince <HI>Con&s;tantine</HI> did not act as a Judge in it; tho' <HI>Natalis Alexander</HI><NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Hist. Eccle&s;. &s;ecul. <HI>4</HI> pars. prim p. <HI>62.</HI></NOTE> thinks their Appeal to be a &s;ufficient proof, that he was not per&s;onally in the Council. I cannot omit taking notice here of one of the Canons<NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg">Can. <HI>6.</HI> Conc. <HI>1.</HI> Arelat.</NOTE> in this Synod, which provides, <HI>That the Bi&s;hops &s;hould exclude from the Church communion tho&s;e Magi&s;trates which were Christian.</HI> Si contra Chri&s;tianam Di&s;ciplinam aliquid agerent, <HI>if they acted any thing again&s;t the Chri&s;tian Di&s;cipline.</HI> It being a &s;trong evidence, that the <HI>Secular</HI> power did not then over rule in the Government of the Church.</P>
<P>But the&s;e turbulent men did not de&s;i&s;t; tho' the Catholick Bi&s;hops had, in two Councils, determin'd and declar'd again&s;t them; they being in the number of tho&s;e, who may be con|futed, but cannot be overcome, becau&s;e their work is always to re&s;i&s;t the truth. And as they had before appeal'd from the Council at <HI>Rome</HI> to the Emperor's Per&s;on; they again make another ap|peal from this Council of <HI>Arelatum:</HI> and tho' <HI>Constantine</HI> did not think that they were le&s;s impious and unrea&s;onable in this appeal, than they were in the former; or that him&s;elf was better qualify'd to judge in a Church ca&s;e than he was before; yet, upon a full experience that their prejudices to the Church Judges was &s;o great that their Deci&s;ions would have
<PB N="75" REF="52"> no effect for peace upon them; and con&s;idering withal that the greate&s;t part of <HI>Africa</HI> joyn'd with them, and became very tu|multuous, in&s;omuch that his Empire might be embroil'd by them, and its quiet, in tho&s;e parts of it, hazarded, if they contemn'd; e&s;pecially &s;ince they &s;o clamourou&s;ly pretended, that they would acquie&s;ce in his determination. Hereupon, the mo&s;t Religious Emperor (tho' unwillingly)<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Augu&s;t. Ep. <HI>162.</HI></NOTE> conde&s;cended to their reque&s;t; but not without regret for his &s;eeming to intermeddle with the Bi&s;hops Province, and asking them pardon for it. And he fir&s;t appointed <HI>Rome</HI> for the place of hearing, and gave each party orders to appear there; but <HI>Caecilianus</HI> did not come; and <HI>Con|&s;tantine</HI> would not proceed again&s;t him when ab&s;ent, as the <HI>Dona|tists</HI> had done before: So that A&s;&s;embly prov'd ineffectual, for which St. <HI>Austin</HI> &s;eems much concern'd, wi&s;hing that he had then declar'd his judgment, and thereby put an end to their mad animo&s;ities, &s;ince they had engag'd them&s;elves to &s;ubmit unto it, and could not go back without a great blemi&s;h upon them. But the Emperor appointed another at <HI>Milan,</HI> in which all parties appear'd; and, upon a full hearing, he declar'd, <HI>Caecilianum innocenti&s;&s;imum, illos improbi&s;&s;imos,</HI> as St. <HI>Au&s;tin</HI> &s;peaks, <HI>Caecilian</HI> to be innocent, and the <HI>Donati&s;ts</HI> mo&s;t impious. But as his judgment here concurr'd with the two Synods precedeing, &s;o it had no better effect; for they cen&s;ur'd him upon it as corrupt, partial, and unju&s;t. And tho' he did not here either take upon him the part of a &s;piritual Judge, or add to, or dimini&s;h from the deci&s;ions and &s;anctions of the two precedeing Councils; but concern'd him&s;elf &s;o far only, <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>with the things which the Bi&s;hops had done there</HI><NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">De vita Con|&s;tant. l. <HI>1.</HI> c. <HI>37.</HI></NOTE> as to &s;atisfy him&s;elf in the impar|tiality and probity of them: Yet he acted as a Secular Judge, and puni&s;ht their pur&s;es<NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg">Aug. Ep. <HI>168.</HI> l. <HI>2.</HI> cont. Petil. c. <HI>92.</HI></NOTE>, took from them the liberty to make a will, &s;eized their meeting Hou&s;es, and determin'd to puni&s;h them<NOTE N="&Verbar;" PLACE="marg">Id l. <HI>1.</HI> cont. Parmen. c. <HI>8.</HI></NOTE> capitally for their non compliance; but <HI>Ho&s;ius</HI> with the other Bi&s;hops prevail'd upon him to forgo that &s;everity. And the argument &s;eems to be good,<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Vid. Con&s;tant. Ep: ad Caecilian. Epi&s;c. Carthag. in Eu&s;eb H. E. l. <HI>18.</HI></NOTE> that &s;ince the&s;e worldly mulcts are thus particularly mention'd, and no other; they are the only judicial Acts which <HI>Con&s;tantine</HI> perform'd in this Con|trover&s;ie.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="2" TYPE="section">
<PB N="76" REF="53">
<HEAD>SECT. II.</HEAD>
<P>AND thus, I think, I have abundantly made it to appear, to any, who &s;hall peru&s;e this account, and de&s;ire &s;atisfaction; that the right to con&s;titute and remove a Bi&s;hop was &s;olely in the Church, during <HI>Con&s;tantine</HI>'s reign; unle&s;s they can produce their <GAP DESC="foreign">, or &s;ecret Hi&s;tory, in oppo&s;ition to that, which our be&s;t Authors have openly deliver'd of tho&s;e affairs. And I do heartily wi&s;h, that two &s;orts of men would &s;eriou&s;ly con&s;ider it, and lay a&s;ide their frequent di&s;cour&s;es, in which they declare them&s;elves of another opinion, and contradict that which is wrote as with a Sun beam, in the eyes of all men that can, and will, &s;ee it.</P>
<P>One &s;ort of the&s;e men &s;ay, <HI>That the Church exercis'd a right, or rather a power, whil&s;t the Empire was Heathen: But it became an</HI> E&s;cheat <HI>to</HI> Con&s;tantine, <HI>when he became a Chri&s;tian, and hath &s;ince remain'd in his Succe&s;&s;ion; and now is actually &s;ubjected in every Prince that is Chri&s;tian, of what Line, Age, or Country &s;oever.</HI></P>
<P>But how came <HI>Con&s;tantine</HI> to be ignorant of this accumulated right upon his becoming a Chri&s;tian? or, if he knew it, why did he forego it, nay abdicate it, &s;ince his conver&s;ion deriv'd and warranted it unto him? To &s;ay nothing of the Emperors that were his Succe&s;&s;ors, who&s;e ca&s;e was the &s;ame. Or were the Bi&s;hops in <HI>Con&s;tantine</HI>'s, and the &s;ucceeding reigns, ignorant of this? Or, which will be a great deal wor&s;e, did they know, but conceal it, and u&s;urp upon the Empire, by the exerci&s;e of that power, which they knew to belong unto it, and them&s;elves had no right in? This Character will not become the&s;e holy Men: But their enemies would have been glad to have met with &s;uch men as <HI>Mr. Selden, Mr. Hobbs,</HI> and &s;ome other no|velli&s;ts, and receiv'd the information from them; for none then among them were able to have given them the&s;e new lights. It would have effectually prov'd that charge again&s;t them &s;ome &s;o much de&s;ir'd to make out, and &s;o frequently attempted, but could find no bottom to build it upon, <HI>viz.</HI> That they acted by principles very prejudicial to the Government.</P>
<P>The other &s;ort of men (which, I hope, may in time be better advis'd) are tho&s;e that &s;ay no le&s;s, to the Church's di&s;reputation; <HI>viz. That the Bi&s;hops did relinqui&s;h their original right to the Empire,
<PB N="77" REF="53"> and wholly quit it, when the Emperors became Christian; even by a kind of</HI> Simoniacal <HI>compact, being brib'd unto it, by the temporal Po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ions and Immunities, with which they ve&s;ted them.</HI></P>
<P>Now tho' I will not undertake to an&s;wer for the integrity of every Bi&s;hop, as to this matter, e&s;pecially in the two Reigns of <HI>Con&s;tantius,</HI> and <HI>Valens;</HI> under which, too many will be found to have waver'd, during their per&s;ecutions, (tho' a competent number did not) their worldly Intere&s;ts having over much in|fluence upon them: Yet they had no temptation to do it under <HI>Con&s;tantine,</HI> who&s;e principles directed him (and his practice was accordingly, &s;ave once, in <HI>Athana&s;ius</HI>'s ca&s;e, in the Coun|cil of <HI>Tyre</HI>) to &s;upport, and pre&s;erve them entire, in tho&s;e liber|ties, with which <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> had endow'd them; and they would have incurr'd his utmo&s;t di&s;plea&s;ure, if they had deliver'd up one of them. So that this Plea al&s;o is altogether precarious. And &s;urely the ca&s;e of <HI>Caecilianus</HI> and <HI>Majorinus</HI> is &s;o full an evidence of the Church's immutable Right, <HI>exclu&s;ive</HI> to the State, and the inviolated pre&s;ervation of it, that nothing can be more &s;o. For 1. <HI>Caecilianus</HI> was enthron'd at <HI>Carthage</HI> by the neighbouring Bi&s;hops, and by their hands only, upon the voy|dance of that Chair, by the death of <HI>Men&s;urius:</HI> And this <HI>Con|&s;tantine</HI> him&s;elf has own'd to have been done according to <HI>Chri&s;t</HI>'s In&s;titution.<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Ep. ad Epi&s;c. Catholicos &s;upr.</NOTE> And farther when <HI>Donatus,</HI> and his Party, op+po&s;ed <HI>Caecilianus</HI> in bringing <HI>Majorinus</HI> upon him, he tells them <HI>That they did thereby &s;o far wickedly and perver&s;ely de&s;ert the Holy Religion, the Heavenly Power, and the Catholick Determination.</HI><NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg"><GAP DESC="foreign">. Eu&s;eb. H. E. l. <HI>10.</HI> c. <HI>5.</HI></NOTE> As in his Epi&s;tle to <HI>Chre&s;tus</HI> Bi&s;hop of <HI>Syracu&s;e,</HI> above mention'd; with a great deal more to the &s;ame effect; which I have al|ready recited.</P>
<P N="2">2. That the Bi&s;hops, and they alone, were the Judges, and had a right to determine, judicially, upon any doubt that &s;eemingly, or really, might ari&s;e concerning <HI>Caecilianus</HI>'s Title, to confirm it, or voyd it, and place a <HI>Succe&s;&s;or</HI> upon him: And <HI>Constantine</HI> admoni&s;heth, cen&s;ureth, and condemns the <HI>Donati&s;ts</HI> for a&s;&s;erting the &s;ame right in him&s;elf, and &s;upplicating him to execute it; for which he repre&s;ents them as men <HI>that are hardned,</HI> de&s;titute of the <HI>Sun&s;hine-light</HI> of the Go&s;pel, and of the <HI>Di|vine Clemency,</HI> and haters of the <HI>Provi&s;ion which Chri&s;t hath made for that purpo&s;e by his Church.</HI> Of which, and more, I have al&s;o given an account above.</P>
<P N="3">3. <HI>Constantine</HI> removes this right and power quite from him|&s;elf,
<PB N="78" REF="54"> and di&s;owns it, as that which no ways belongs to him. It &s;eems then that the Coordinate Power of the Church and State in the exerci&s;e of it, which Doctor <HI>Hody</HI> &s;peaks of, was unknown to this great Emperor, when he &s;ays <HI>That the</HI> Civil<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>p</HI> 9.</NOTE> <HI>and</HI> Eccle|&s;ia&s;tical <HI>Per&s;ons are</HI> Governors <HI>alike; and the latter exceeds the for|mer only in that tho&s;e have a &s;uperadded right</HI> to admini&s;ter the Sacraments and ordain the Clergy: <HI>And if the Emperor had thought fit to have exerci&s;ed his right in the Eccle&s;ia&s;tical Government, and depos'd</HI> Cornelius; <HI>St.</HI> Cyprian <HI>would have own'd, and &s;ub|mitted to his deprivation</HI><NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg"><HI>p.</HI> 10.</NOTE> <HI>as rea&s;onable and ju&s;t.</HI> And tho' I can't an&s;wer his demand<NOTE N="&Verbar;" PLACE="marg"><HI>p.</HI> 41.</NOTE> and make it appear. <HI>That the Church hath ever refus'd to &s;ubmit to the pre&s;ent Po&s;&s;e&s;&s;or, becau&s;e his Pre: dece&s;&s;or was unju&s;tly depos'd by the &s;ecular Power;</HI> we have prov'd the &s;ecular Power incompetent to deprive him: and if he does prove that St <HI>Cyprian,</HI> or any one, or more Bi&s;hops, have &s;ub|mitted, (tho' I'll engage he cannot prove it upon St. <HI>Cyprian</HI>) their examples will not be argumentative: and he had as good let it alone.</P>
<P N="4">4. All that <HI>Con&s;tantine</HI> did, or was capable to do, in this mat|ter of <HI>Caecilianus,</HI> and <HI>Majorinus,</HI> in the way of Judicature, was to confirm the anteceeding judicial Acts of the Bi&s;hops, and cor|roborate them, by his &s;ecular Laws and Penalties.</P>
<P N="5">5. And la&s;tly. It is here al&s;o to be con&s;ider'd, that this Power, of which we have been di&s;cour&s;ing, thus exercis'd by the Bi&s;hops, and di&s;claim'd by <HI>Con&s;tantine</HI> him&s;elf, related purely and &s;olely to the fixing a Bi&s;hop in his See. <HI>i. e.</HI> To that one par|ticular branch of the rights and power of the Prie&s;thood, by which one Bi&s;hop is enabled to give po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion to another; and the Bi|&s;hop &s;o po&s;&s;e&s;s'd receives a right to govern the Officers &s;ubjected to him, and the Believers within his own Di&s;trict, and they become oblig'd to pay their duty of &s;ubjection to him. The Empire could then no more do it (at lea&s;t in its own apprehen|&s;ions) then it could admini&s;ter the Sacraments, or give holy Orders. 'Tis true the right of Inve&s;titure is &s;o far in the Prince, as it extends to the Bi&s;hop's Temporals, and no other hand but his can legally po&s;&s;e&s;s a Bi&s;hop of them, and give him a civil forin&s;ick right unto them: But as it extends to his Spirituals, the Prince can no more inve&s;t him with them, than he can give him the <HI>Holy Gho&s;t,</HI> or a Power to di&s;pen&s;e any other of <HI>Christ</HI>'s In&s;titutions. And we are mo&s;t &s;ure, that the Catholicks did not refu&s;e to communicate with <HI>Majorinus</HI> becau&s;e <HI>he</HI> was an
<PB N="79" REF="54"> Heretick, (tho' Doctor <HI>Hody</HI> often contends they did refu&s;e Communion with &s;everal Schi&s;matical Bi&s;hops brought in upon a full See, as <HI>Majorinus</HI> was, not becau&s;e of their Schi&s;m, or want of a Title, but becau&s;e of their here&s;ie) &s;ince no one pretends that the <HI>Donati&s;ts</HI> were any ways Heretical; at lea&s;t when this Controver&s;ie of Church Right was &s;tarted by them: Tho' St <HI>Austin</HI><NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Here&s;is autem <HI>Schi&s;mainvete|ratum</HI> po&s;t cau|&s;am dictam &amp; finitam, &mdash; in Haere&s;in Schi&s;ma verterunt. l. <HI>2.</HI> contra Cre&s;c. Gram. c. <HI>7.</HI> de Haere&s;ibus c. <HI>69.</HI></NOTE> afterwards calls them Hereticks, by rea&s;on of their continu'd, ob&s;tinate, and invincible Schi&s;m; as al&s;o in that they maintain'd &s;everal Errors, concerning the nature of the Ca|tholick Church, as rebaptizations, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> which they did not broach till that cau&s;e was ended.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="3" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT III.</HEAD>
<P>I Cannot omit one in&s;tance more in <HI>Con&s;tantine</HI>'s days: It is that of his proceedings again&s;t <HI>Athana&s;ius;</HI> which great Pre|late, we know, fell &s;o far under his di&s;plea&s;ure, thro' the ma|lice and craft of his re&s;tle&s;s Adver&s;aries, (e&s;pecially the <HI>Eu&s;ebians,</HI> who had gain'd too much upon the good Emperor, and thereby lay'd their de&s;ign to re&s;tore <HI>Ariani&s;m,</HI> but did not effect it till the latter end of <HI>Con&s;tantius</HI>'s Reign,) that <HI>Con&s;tantine</HI> gave way to that great Prelate's depo&s;ition, for &s;everal crimes exhibited, but never prov'd again&s;t him. Now, did <HI>Con&s;tantine</HI> effect it, or but pretend to do it, by his own Right or Power? Or did the Treacherous <HI>Eu&s;ebian</HI> Bi&s;hops and Clergy advi&s;e him &s;o to do by his own Authority? Or did they dive&s;t them&s;elves of their own Rights therein, tho' they afterwards &s;hamele&s;ly p<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">o&s;tituted the Priviledges of the Church to <HI>Con&s;tantius</HI> in the like ca&s;es of <HI>Liberius,</HI> and other Bi&s;hops? Was not a Council call'd at <HI>Tyre</HI> by <HI>Con&s;tantine</HI><NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg"><HI>Socrat. l.</HI> 1. <HI>c.</HI> 21, 22, 23. <HI>Theod. l.</HI> 1. <HI>c.</HI> 30, 31. <HI>Soz l.</HI> 2. <HI>c.</HI> 24.</NOTE> on purpo&s;e to remove him? Or did any hands there except tho&s;e of the Bi&s;hops, make and execute the depo&s;ing Sentence? Or what more did the Empire do in that whole affair, but &s;econd the Synod's Decree, by exiling him into <HI>Trevers</HI> in <HI>France?</HI> And this was in the 30th. year of <HI>Con&s;tan|tine</HI>'s Reign, and but two years before his death: From whence it is very evident, that he continued in the opinion he had entertain'd in the ca&s;e of <HI>Majorinus,</HI> which was 22. years be|fore. And during the&s;e 30 years of his Reign he was not &s;en&s;ible of any &s;uch Church Rights, which &s;ome, &s;o very con|fidently maintain to have accrew'd to his Crown upon his be|coming Chri&s;tian. We may with the &s;ame &s;ecurity vouch for
<PB N="80" REF="55"> his two following years; and that the Bi&s;hops did not them|&s;elves relinqui&s;h any &s;uch rights, or derive them unto him, being brib'd to it by his temporal Favours. And this will be rendred much more probable, it will be demon&s;trated, if we con&s;ider the nature of this Synod, and &s;ome circum&s;tances of it, as we find them in <HI>Athana&s;ius</HI><NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>Apol.</HI> 2. <HI>p</HI> 728.</NOTE> <HI>By what right then</HI> (&s;ays he) <HI>could they convene a Synod again&s;t us? Or, with what impudence call that a Coun|cil, where the &s;ecular Governor, or Prefect, is Pre&s;ident, his Guards keep the door, and in&s;tead of the Deacons of the Church, his Notary, or Register, introduceth the members: He &s;peaks, the other keeping &s;ilence, or rather, paying their obedience to him: In&s;omuch that the Bi&s;hops had not freedom of &s;peech by rea&s;on of him: he gave the command; we were conducted by the Soldiery; or rather the Prefect him&s;elf did only attend the Sentences of the</HI> Eu&s;ebians? <HI>In &s;hort (my belov'd Bre|then) what face is there of a Synod, where bani&s;hment, or &s;laughter were determin'd, if the Emperor's plea&s;ure had no effect. Athana&s;ius</HI><NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg"><GAP DESC="foreign">. Ibid. p. <HI>730.</HI></NOTE> adds in another place, <HI>They pretend the name of Synod, when the work of it is manag'd by the King: And for this end, the &s;ecular Governor and the Soldiers do overawe the Bi&s;hops with their Guards; and the King's Letters call the Meeting, compelling tho&s;e whom they require to come in.</HI></P>
<P>From whence the&s;e following ob&s;ervables are ea&s;y and manife&s;t.</P>
<P N="1">1. That <HI>Constantine</HI> cannot be conceiv'd to have chang'd his Opinion in his latter days, and maintain a direct and imme|diate right in him&s;elf to abdicate a Bi&s;hop, and ab&s;olve his Sub|jects of their duty to him, &s;ince he not only call'd this Council of <HI>Tyre</HI> on pu<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">po&s;e for <HI>Athana&s;ius</HI>'s abdication, (which makes a &s;trong pre&s;umption that he did not think his own Power to be competent for it) but in that he acted mediately only, and in|directly&punc; by the B<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">&s;hops hands: And either provided that the Synod &s;hould be made up of his own Creatures; or el&s;e he im|ploy'd his Prefect, and inferior &s;ecular Officers to overawe, and over rule their votes, menacing terrors and penalties again&s;t them, when they did not an&s;wer his de&s;ign. For what needed he to have proceded in this manner, if his &s;ingle Edict had been a Law to the Church, as it was to the State? Can any account be given of the&s;e his Artifices, mean complyances, and his &s;ervile dependence on the <HI>Eu&s;ebian</HI> Bi&s;hops? Or of the meaning of his threats to the Or|thodox, if he could of him&s;elf, have effectually depos'd <HI>Athana&s;ius,</HI>
<PB N="81" REF="55"> or the Bi&s;hops had not had a right, and power to ob&s;truct his Depo&s;ition, &s;eparate, and independent upon the Emperour.</P>
<P N="2">2. If it be &s;aid here, (as it u&s;ually is upon other occa&s;ions) that <HI>Con&s;tantine</HI> did not under&s;tand his own Rights in the Church; or el&s;e that he gave them up to her di&s;cretion, being guided by an over ruling zeal, or, as &s;ome may &s;ay, by a particular intere&s;t. The fir&s;t cannot be pleaded; &s;ince it is not likely that his whole Court knew no better, or that it did not inform him; or that it would at the &s;ame time preclude the Empire's right and truckle under tho&s;e that u&s;urpt it; e&s;pecially under the Bi&s;hops, who&s;e Lord&s;hip it could lea&s;t endure. And for the latter, he was &s;o far from giving all up to the Church's di&s;cretion, that he gain'd a Majority in the Council by menaces and violence. The <HI>Eu&s;e|bian</HI> Bi&s;hops only were they that acted freely, and their votes were implicitely receiv'd and &s;ubmited to, thro' the pre&s;ent di&s;tre&s;s of tho&s;e who complied with them. And by the&s;e means the cau&s;e was gain'd again&s;t <HI>Athana&s;ius.</HI></P>
<P N="3">3. It is hence very plain, that <HI>Con&s;tantine</HI>'s Doctrine and Pra|ctice, in the ca&s;e of <HI>Caecilianus,</HI> and <HI>Majorinus</HI> (of which an ac|count is given above) was purely upon Church principles; &s;ince <HI>Athana&s;ius</HI> does contend here, and declare for <HI>the &s;ame;</HI> and we are to think that the other Catholick Bi&s;hops, which were in the Synod, and adhered to him, nay prote&s;ted again&s;t the <HI>Eu&s;ebians</HI> proceedings, among&s;t whom the famous <HI>Paphnutius</HI> was one, did not come behind him in it. What le&s;s doth our mo&s;t Holy <HI>Alexandrian</HI> Patriarch &s;ay, than that the &s;ecular Power is not to intermeddle with the depo&s;ing of a Bi&s;hop, either by the Em|peror in Per&s;on, or by his Sub&s;titutes, but that it is the work of the Bi&s;hops alone.</P>
<P>Be&s;ides, &s;ince <HI>Athana&s;ius</HI><NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Theod. H. E. l. <HI>1.</HI> c. <HI>31.</HI> Soz. l. <HI>2.</HI> c. <HI>22.</HI></NOTE> appeal'd from this P&s;eudo-Synod to <HI>Con&s;tantine;</HI> we may not think that his prote&s;tation again&s;t his right to depo&s;e, was, even in <HI>Constantine</HI>'s opinion, in injury to him; if it had been thought &s;o by him, we cannot believe that he would have &s;hew'd &s;o much kindne&s;s to him as he did afterwards. <HI>Con&s;tantine</HI> the Son tells us, that his Father de&s;ign'd to recal <HI>Athana&s;ius,</HI> but he was prevented by his death; and that he did not bani&s;h him to <HI>Trevers</HI> as a guilty man, but to pre&s;erve him from the Rabble in <HI>Aegypt;</HI> and farther, that it was upon his own experience in <HI>France</HI> (where <HI>Constantine</HI> the Son's Government lay) of <HI>Athana&s;ius</HI>'s eminent virtues, that he accompli&s;ht his Father's de&s;ign, and &s;ent him back in
<PB N="82" REF="56"> peace to <HI>Alexandria;</HI> an account of which we have in his Epi&s;tle to the People of that City; whe<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">e, he &s;ays that his Father pur|pos'd to call him home, <GAP DESC="foreign">, as to his <HI>proper place,</HI> and as an unduly di&s;po&s;&s;e&s;s'd Prelate. But do Emperors u&s;e to be|&s;tow &s;u<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">h <HI>Eulogies</HI> and Graces on tho&s;e, who take the chief Jewels out of their Crowns, and teach others that they ought to do the &s;ame? For &s;uch we are told, by &s;ome, their de|po&s;ing Power is.</P>
<P>I thought to have concluded this Chapter here; but I cannot forbear, upon further con&s;iderations, to de&s;ire the Reader to compare the follwing Account of St. <HI>Cyprian</HI> and <HI>Con&s;tantine;</HI> in which he will find them to have had the &s;ame &s;entiments con|cerning the Rights of the Church, as to our pre&s;ent Ca&s;e, tho' they liv'd, at lea&s;t, &s;ixty years a&s;under; St. <HI>Cyprian,</HI> when <HI>No|vatianus</HI> and <HI>Fortunatus</HI> were brought into his and <HI>Cornelius</HI>'s Sees, whil&s;t they were alive, and po&s;&s;e&s;s'd them upon Church terms: <HI>Con&s;tantine,</HI> when <HI>Majorinus</HI> was brought into <HI>Caecilia|nus</HI>'s See, <HI>Caecilianus</HI> being the rightful Po&s;&s;e&s;&s;or of it, and the <HI>Donati&s;ts</HI> &s;upplicated him to undertake their cau&s;e: And <HI>both</HI> of them are <HI>po&s;itive,</HI> that none but a Church Right can fix a Bi&s;hop in a Di&s;trict, or deprive him: Even a Church Right cannot bring a Bi&s;hop into a See that is then legally fill'd: But if the Prince, or any other Power that is worldly, does fix or deprive a Bi&s;hop, and a People does receive and obey him, or reject and di&s;obey him, upon that Authority, they herein act in oppo&s;ition to God and Chri&s;t, and the Church; who&s;e Laws have provided otherwi&s;e.</P>
<P>St. <HI>Cyprian</HI> declares, upon the foremention'd occa&s;ion, to this effect, <HI>viz.</HI></P>
<Q><TEXT LANG="eng lat">
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="narrative">
<P>That he who brings in a Bi|&s;hop upon another,<NOTE PLACE="marg">L. <HI>1.</HI> Ep. <HI>3.</HI> Ed. ve<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">.</NOTE> than duly placed in a See, acts again&s;t the Divine Law, and makes him&s;elf a Judge, not of the Bi|&s;hop, but of God.</P>
<P><NOTE PLACE="marg">Ibid.</NOTE>That the Secound which is brought in, is not a Bi&s;hop ac|cording to the will of God&punc; but contrary to the di&s;po&s;ition and tradition of the Go&s;pel: &s;uch a Bi&s;hop is made without God and his Holy Spirit.</P>
<PB N="83" REF="56">
<P>That when de&s;perate men, made for de&s;truction, do im|pugn a rightful Bi&s;hop, it is not from Chri&s;t, who con&s;titutes and protects Bi&s;hops; but from him who is the Adver&s;ary of Chri&s;t, and enemy of the Church, the Devil.</P>
<P><HI>Cornelius</HI> &s;ucceeded <HI>Fabianus</HI> in a lawful Ordination, and <HI>Novatianus</HI> a&s;&s;umes his Chair; he does it in contempt of the Evangelical and Apo&s;tolical Tradition: &mdash;he is a For|reigner, and profane.</P>
<P>As there is one God, one Chri&s;t, one Church; &s;o there is one Bi&s;hop: a new Prie&s;thood cannot be made, be&s;ides that one which is con&s;tituted: If &s;o, it is adulterous, it is impious and &s;acrilegious; it is in&s;titut|ed by the fury of man, that the Divine In&s;titution &s;hould be violated.</P>
<P>To bring in one Bi&s;hop upon another is contrary to the Ec|cle&s;ia&s;tical Di&s;po&s;ition, the E|vangelical Law, the Unity of the Catholick In&s;titution.</P>
<P>One Bi&s;hop is placed in a Di&s;trict in&s;tead of Chri&s;t.</P>
<P>By the Sentence of God.</P>
<P>By the Sentence of God and Chri&s;t.</P>
<P>By Divine In&s;piration.</P>
<P>By the Omnipotent God, and Chri&s;t the Lord.</P>
<P>By the Will of God.</P>
<P>This Unity was deliver'd from the Lord by the Apo|&s;tles,
<PB N="84" REF="57"> to the Bi&s;hops their Suc|ce&s;&s;ors.</P>
<P><NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>L.</HI> 2. <HI>Ep.</HI> 11. <HI>l.</HI> 4. <HI>Ep.</HI> 2.</NOTE>This one Bi&s;hop is placed and confirmed in his See by the Te&s;timony of his Collegues, and the Suffrage of the Cler|gy.</P>
<P><NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Ep.</HI> 6. <HI>l.</HI> 1. <HI>Ep.</HI> 11. <HI>l.</HI> 2. <HI>Ep.</HI> 2. <HI>l.</HI> 3.</NOTE>He cannot be accounted a Pa&s;tor, nor hold a Di&s;trict, who is Ordain'd by his own private Rule, upon a lawful Succe&s;&s;ion. Neither the &s;e|cular Magi&s;trate, nor any <HI>ir|re&s;i&s;tible Party</HI> can con&s;titute &s;uch a Bi&s;hop. Such a thing is neither permitted by the Law of God, nor lawful to be done.</P>
<P><NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Ep.</HI> 8. <HI>l.</HI> 4.</NOTE>Who&s;oever he is that is placed in a Bi&s;hoprick, and accepts it with the breach of the Laws of the Church, is to be reputed as no Bi&s;hop.</P>
<P><NOTE PLACE="marg">Ep. <HI>3.</HI> l. <HI>1.</HI> Ep. <HI>6.</HI> Ibid:</NOTE>He is made a Bi&s;hop, but not according to the Will of God: He cannot be account|ed a Bi&s;hop. He is a Stranger and without.</P>
<P><NOTE PLACE="marg">Eu&s;eb. H. Eccl. l. <HI>6.</HI> c. <HI>35.</HI></NOTE>(<HI>Cornelius</HI> of <HI>Rome</HI> &s;ays of <HI>Novatianus</HI> al&s;o, that he did not receive his Bi&s;hoprick from God.)</P>
<P><NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>L.</HI> 2. <HI>Ep.</HI> 10. <HI>l.</HI> 3. <HI>Ep.</HI> 14.</NOTE>He is an Adulterous and contrary head. He hath an adulterous Chair.</P>
<P><NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>L.</HI> 4. <HI>Ep.</HI> 2.</NOTE>Tho' he boa&s;t much of him|&s;elf, and challenges a great deal, he is no Bi&s;hop.</P>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 TYPE="translation">
<P>Quod Sacerdoti Dei non obtem|peratur, nec unus in Eccle&s;ia ad tem|pus judex, nec ad tempus Sacerdos. &mdash;&s;i &s;ecundum Magi&s;teria Divina, &mdash;po&s;t divinum Judicium&mdash;judi|cem &s;e non tam Epi&s;copi quam Dei.</P>
<P>Plane Epi&s;copi non de voluntate Dei fiunt, &s;ed contra di&s;po&s;itionem &amp; traditionem Evangilii,&mdash;&s;i bimet ip&s;i Regem con&s;tituerunt, &amp; non per me: habui&s;ti con&s;ilium &amp; non per me; &amp; feci&s;ti conventionem &amp; non per Spiritum meum.</P>
<PB N="83" REF="56">
<P>Cum talis frater a quibu&s;dam de&s;peratis &amp; perditis impugnari videtur, non Chri&s;tus,<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Ep.</HI> 9. <HI>l.</HI> 4.</NOTE> qui Sacerdo|tes aut constituit, aut protegit; &s;ed ille qui Christi Adver&s;arius, &amp; <HI>Eccle&s;iae inimicus.</HI> Ibid.&mdash;Dia|bolo crederent Epi&s;copum pro&s;cri|benti.</P>
<P>Qui Fabiano legitima Ordina|tione &s;ucce&s;&s;it &mdash; Evangelica &amp; Apo&s;tolica Traditione contem|pta &mdash; alienus est,<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Ep.</HI> 6. <HI>l.</HI> 4.</NOTE> profanus e&s;t.</P>
<P>Deus unus e&s;t, Chri&s;tus unus e&s;t,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Ep. <HI>8.</HI> ibid.</NOTE> &amp; Eccle&s;ia una e&s;t. &mdash;novum fieri praeter unum Socerdotium non pote&s;t: &mdash;Adulterum e&s;t, impium &amp; &s;acrilegum e&s;t:&mdash; Humano furore in&s;tituitur, ut di|po&s;itio Divina violetur.</P>
<P>Contra Eccle&s;ia&s;ticam di&s;po&s;itio|nem, contra Evangelicam Legem,<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Ep.</HI> 2. <HI>l.</HI> 3.</NOTE> contra Institutionis Catholicae Uni|tatem.</P>
<P>Unus in Eccle&s;ia Sacerdos vice-Christi.<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>L.</HI> 1. <HI>Ep.</HI> 3.</NOTE></P>
<P>Judicio Dei.<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Lib.</HI> 3. <HI>Ep.</HI> 13</NOTE></P>
<P>Dei &amp; Christi ejus Senten|tia.<NOTE PLACE="marg">Ibid.</NOTE></P>
<P>Ad hunc locum Divinitus electi.<NOTE PLACE="marg">Ibid.</NOTE></P>
<P>A Deo Omnipotente,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Ep. <HI>2.</HI> ibid.</NOTE> Chri&s;toque Domino.<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Lib.</HI> 4. <HI>Ep.</HI> 2.</NOTE></P>
<P>De Dei voluntate</P>
<P>A Domino per Apo&s;tolos nobis Succe&s;&s;oribus.<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Lib.</HI> 2. <HI>Ep.</HI> 8.</NOTE></P>
<PB N="84" REF="57">
<P>Epi&s;copo facto Collegarum Te|&s;timonio; Cleri &s;uffragio Ordinato. &mdash;Factus Epi&s;copus a plurimis Col|legis no&s;tris.&mdash;De Sacerdotum Col|legio.&mdash;Omnium nostrorum con|&s;entione firmato.</P>
<P>Pa&s;tor haberi quomodo potest, qui manente vero Pastore nemini &s;uccedens, a &s;eip&s;o Ordinatus e&s;t? &mdash; Nullo modo tenere Ec|cle&s;iam potest.&mdash;Con&s;tituti nullo modo po&s;&s;e:&mdash;Nec fas est, nec fieri licet.</P>
<P>Qui&s;quis ille fuerit: <HI>&amp;c.</HI></P>
<P>Plan&egrave; Epi&s;eopi non de volun|tate Dei fiunt.&mdash;Nec Epi&s;|copus computari potest. E&s;t alie|nus, foris.</P>
<P>(<GAP DESC="foreign">.)</P>
<P>Adulterum &amp; contrarium caput: &mdash;adulteram Cathedram.</P>
<P>Multum licet de &s;e jactans, &amp; plurimum vendicans, nullus e&s;t.</P>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
</TEXT></Q>
<P><HI>Con&s;tantine</HI> the Emperor declares al&s;o to the &s;ame effect in his Epi&s;tle to the Catholick Bi&s;hops, upon the forementioned occa&s;ions. as,
<Q><TEXT LANG="eng lat">
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="narrative">
<P>That the <HI>Donati&s;ts</HI> do not
<PB N="85" REF="57"> receive the Scriptures with a right Faith.</P>
<P>A propitious Divine Influ|ence hath not reacht them.</P>
<P>The Clemency of Chri&s;t is gone far from them.</P>
<P>They hate the provi&s;ion which is made for their better information.</P>
<P>Great madne&s;s abides them.</P>
<P>A forcible malignity is lodg'd in their brea&s;ts.</P>
<P>Otherwi&s;e they would have under&s;tood that God had pro|vided in his Law, that the Church alone &s;hould be Judg in the ca&s;e of fixing Bi&s;hops in their Sees: It being as clear as the Sun at Noon day: The contrary is not to be &s;poken nor heard: Neither would they have requir'd my Judg|ment; &s;ince a Heavenly pro|vi&s;ion is made for them other|waies by the Church.</P>
<P>If a prevailing malignity had not aboad in their brea&s;t; and they had not willfully forgotten the Law, oft have they been inform'd and warned by my &s;elf again&s;t the&s;e their wicked practices, they would not have interpos'd and &s;up|plicated me in this matter.</P>
<P>They ask judgment of me, in this affair, who am to be judg'd by the Church: I &s;peak as the truth is, the judgment of the Prie&s;ts ought to be ac|counted the &s;ame as God's
<PB N="86" REF="58"> judgment, given in his Per|&s;on from the Bench.</P>
<P>The&s;e men in refu&s;ing the Heavenly Judgment (meaning the Churches, by which <HI>Caeci|lianus</HI> was plac'd in the <HI>Car|thaginian</HI> See) and thinking it fit that my Judgment &s;hould be ask'd, and my Power be imply'd in the continuing him there, or removing him from it, they therein&mdash;</P>
<P>Do the Offices of the Devil.</P>
<P>Act the part of the Gentils,</P>
<P>Make their &s;avage in&s;ults upon God him&s;elf.</P>
<P>He exhorts the Catholick Bi|&s;hops to go home to their Di|&s;trict, and receive tho&s;e Bi&s;hops, whom the Lord, by his Church, has placed in their &s;eve|ral Sees: and to pray for him.</P>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 TYPE="translation">
<P>Si vera fide voluerint ob&s;e|quia
<PB N="85" REF="57"> Sancti&s;&s;imae Legi deferre.</P>
<P>Neque in eorum &s;en&s;us ingre&s;&s;a e&s;t propitia Divinitas.</P>
<P>Ab his procul abce&s;&s;erat Chri&s;ti clementia.</P>
<P>Eos a Caele&s;ti provi&s;ione exo&s;os.</P>
<P>Quae in ip&s;os tanta ve&s;ania per|&s;everat.</P>
<P>Quae vis malignitatis in eorum pectoribus per&s;everat.</P>
<P>Intelligere poterunt quantum &s;ibi nutu Dei provi&s;um &s;it. &mdash; in quibus manife&s;ta luce claret;&mdash; in iis quibus maxima durities in|genita e&s;t po&s;&s;it reprehendi.&mdash;Cae|lesti provi&s;ione meum judicium eos comperi postulare.</P>
<P>Quae vis malignitatis in eorum pectoribus per&s;everat? &mdash; Quo|ties improbi&s;&s;imis additionibus &s;uis &s;unt condigna re&s;pon&s;ione oppre&s;&s;i? &mdash;&s;i hoc ante oculos &s;uos ha|bere volui&s;&s;ent, minime hoc ip&s;um interpo&s;ui&s;&s;ent.</P>
<P>Meum judicium po&s;tulant, qu<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> ip&s;e judicium Chri&s;ti expecto.&mdash; dico enim, ut &s;e veritas ha|bet Sacerdotum judicium ita deh<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">t haberi, ac &s;i ip&s;e Deus re&s;idens judicat.</P>
<PB N="86" REF="58">
<P>Renuentes Caeleste judicium, meum putaverunt po&s;tulandum.</P>
<P>Officia Diaboli.</P>
<P>Sicut in cau&s;is Gentilium fieri &s;olet.</P>
<P>Qui in ip&s;o Deo immaniores pro|&s;ilierunt.</P>
<P>Cum his quos Dominus dignos cultu &s;uo judicavit profici&s;cimini, &amp; redite ad proprias &s;edes, meique mementote, ut mei Salvator mi|&s;ereatur.</P>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
</TEXT></Q></P>
<P>Now, upon a ju&s;t con&s;ideration of this &s;tate, and the&s;e rights of the Church and the Empire, with re&s;pect to the filling and vacating Sees, or accepting and rejecting Bi&s;hops, in the time of our Eminent Archbi&s;hop St. <HI>Cyprian,</HI> and <HI>Con&s;tantine</HI> the Great, and fir&s;t Chri&s;tian Emperor, as them&s;elves have given us an account of them; and a due comparing their Judgments and Determinations concerning them, as they are above &s;et down, from their own pens; it will appear very plain and evident, to a demon&s;tration, That tho&s;e Rights, and that Power, which the Chri&s;tian Bi&s;hops, in the <HI>Cyprianick</HI> Age exercis'd to the foremen|tion'd purpo&s;e under <HI>Rome Heathen,</HI> remain'd in the Bi&s;hops, and <HI>only</HI> in them; and were exercis'd by them, under <HI>Rome Chri&s;tian,</HI> in the days of <HI>Con&s;tantine:</HI> They then became neither an e&s;cheat to the Empire, nor were delivered into its hands, by the Bi&s;hops, upon its becoming Chri&s;tian: but, as the practice of the Church and of the Empire, &s;o the Laws of both continu'd their execution, as &s;ubjected before in the Church: Even the immediate and and eternal Law of <HI>Christ Je&s;us</HI> provided for it. And that in their J<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">dgements, none but &s;en&s;ele&s;s and &s;tupid men, as to the
<PB N="87" REF="58"> things of God, being under the Devil's in&s;tigation, could think and believe otherwi&s;e. As the Church is concluded by St. <HI>Cy|prian</HI> to have a Divine indefei&s;able right, not only to lay hands upon and Con&s;ecrate them; but to Ordain, (as he u&s;eth the word)<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Apud Corne|lium qui Epi&s;|copo Fabiano le|gitima Ordina|ti<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ne &s;ucce&s;&s;it. l. <HI>1.</HI> Ep. <HI>6.</HI>&mdash; Epi&s;cop<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> Cor|nelio Cleri &amp; plebis Suffragio ordinato. l. <HI>3.</HI> Ep. <HI>13.</HI>&mdash; Nec habeat Eccle&s;iae o<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">dinationem. l. <HI>4.</HI> Ep. <HI>2.</HI></NOTE> <HI>i. e.</HI> to inve&s;t the Bi&s;hops in their Sees; So &s;he is &s;uppo<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">'d and allow'd by <HI>Constantine</HI> to retain the &s;ame, and &s;he alone: He does <HI>not</HI> pretend to it. Doth he not quite remove it from him?</P>
</DIV3>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="3" TYPE="chapter">
<HEAD>CHAP. III.</HEAD>
<DIV3 N="1" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. I.</HEAD>
<P>IF we look into the State of the Empire and the Church in <HI>Con&s;tantius</HI>'s Reign, (who was Son to <HI>Con&s;tantine</HI> the Great, and his immediate Succe&s;&s;or) we &s;hall find them to be the &s;ame as in <HI>Constantine</HI>'s: Tho' we may meet with &s;ome different practices, which the <HI>Eu&s;ebians</HI> put him upon, (de|&s;erting the true Government, and the true Faith, at once) but were &s;till prote&s;ted again&s;t by a competent number of Catholick Bi&s;hops and Believers: And we have good rea&s;on to think that <HI>Con&s;tantius</HI> was well aware of his error therein; and that he was wheedled into i<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> by his <HI>Eu&s;ebiaus,</HI> who were dexterous in that Art, and would boggle at nothing to &s;erve a pre&s;ent turn; &s;ince few Princes have been known more con&s;tantly to apply them|&s;elves to their Clergy, and to make u&s;e of them more than he did; in&s;omuch that the Heathen Hi&s;torian<NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg">&V;t catervi<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> anti&s;titum ju|mentis publicis ultro citroque di&s;currertibus per Synodos, quas appellant. Ammian. Mar|cel. l. <HI>21.</HI> in &s;ine Libri.</NOTE>, not only takes notice of it, but he does it in a le&s;&s;ening way, repre&s;enting the Bi&s;hops, as <HI>running hither and thither in Troops by Synods, as they call them.</HI> And, I remember, he &s;omewhere, thereabout, ridicules them, and &s;ays, <HI>That</HI> Con&s;tantius <HI>plough'd up his roads with the frequent going of Coaches, which carried them from place to place.</HI></P>
<P>For the prof of this, and that <HI>Constantius</HI> did not really be|lieve that he was ve&s;ted with a Right to exerci&s;e the depo&s;ing power on a Bi&s;hop, and by removing him from his Bi&s;hoprick to make way for a Succe&s;&s;or; tho' his pa&s;&s;ion and Intere&s;t did now and then pu&s;h him on to make &s;ome attempts that way: I will proceed on the In&s;tance of <HI>Athana&s;ius, omitting others</HI> at pre&s;ent. Now it is well known that <HI>Con&s;tantius</HI> had a peculiar di&s;gu&s;t again&s;t this holy Man, in&s;omuch that he peremp|torily
<PB N="88" REF="59"> re&s;olv'd that he &s;hould be di&s;po&s;&s;e&s;t, and finally remov'd; tho' he conde&s;cended &s;ome time before, by the Interce&s;&s;ion of his Brother <HI>Con&s;tantine,</HI> that he &s;hould be releas'd from that exile in <HI>France,</HI> which his Father had lay'd him under, and return to his Church and People of <HI>Alexandria:</HI> But did he pro|fe&s;s and endeavour to effect his removal afterwards as by a Right, connate, and coeval to his Empire, and ve&s;ted in a <HI>Decius</HI> or a <HI>Diocle&s;ian,</HI> as Doctor <HI>Hody</HI> would have us believe? Or as e&s;cheated from the Church to him upon his receiving Chri&s;tia|nity, as Mr. <HI>Selden</HI> would have it? Or by the &s;ubmi&s;&s;ion and re&s;ignation of the Bi&s;hops then in being, as others &s;ugge&s;t? Did he attempt it by any other hands then tho&s;e of the Bi&s;hops? Even when he u&s;ed his own upon other occa&s;ions, was it any other waies, <HI>then by offering violence to the hands of the Bi&s;hops,</HI> and haling them in, that they might lift them up in voting on his &s;ide, as his Father had done before him in the Council of <HI>Tyre?</HI> It mu&s;t be own'd that he did not alwaies make u&s;e of a fair deal|ing Council, who&s;e Acts were bottom'd on true Church prin|ciples: He, indeed, waved every one, which he &s;u&s;pected to be &s;uch, as much as he could. Hence, <HI>Athana&s;ius</HI><NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">&V;bi nec comes a&s;&s;uturus e&s;&s;et, nec &s;atellites pro foribus excuba|rent, nec ex Cae|&s;aris prae&s;criptis omnia fierent, quibus rationi|bus, &amp; non aliis, Epi&s;copos vice|runt, imo qui &s;ine hoc prae&s;idio ne loqui p<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">te|runt Ep. ad Solitar. p. <HI>816.</HI></NOTE> tells us, that the <HI>Eu&s;ebians</HI> refus'd to come to the <HI>Roman</HI> Synod, to which <HI>Julius</HI> &s;ummon'd them, becau&s;e, <HI>there was no Prefect to be pre|&s;ent, no Soldiers to keep the Guard, and all was not to be done by the pre&s;cript of Cae&s;ar, by which means, and no other, they had con|quer'd the Bi&s;hops, who might not &s;peak, but under this Pre&s;idency, and with their leave.</HI> Yet, he did not hitherto pretend to a &s;e|parate independent Power in Church affairs, or the depo&s;ing Power in particular: nor afterwards, till the perfidious <HI>Eu&s;ebians,</HI> Sycophant Courtiers, and debaucht Eunuchs, joyning altoge|ther, had influenc'd him for the wor&s;e; and made him, even their Creature: which occa&s;ion'd St. <HI>Athana&s;ius</HI> to u&s;e the&s;e ex|pre&s;&s;ions<NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg">Ib. p. <HI>835.</HI></NOTE> <HI>The Eunuchs can do all things with</HI> Con&s;tantius; <HI>no|thing is done by him without them; they exerci&s;e domination over the Church, to whom the government of Hou&s;es is rarely committed.</HI> And <HI>Gregory Nazianzen</HI><NOTE N="&Verbar;" PLACE="marg">Orat. in laude Heronis.</NOTE> complaining of the &s;ame times, par|ticularly laments them, in that <HI>&s;o much power was given to tho&s;e who are to be accounted in the number neither of men nor women.</HI> Ac|cordingly, his fir&s;t p oceeding again&s;t <HI>Athana&s;ius</HI> was in the Synod or <HI>Antioch,</HI> which was held in the fir&s;t year of his Reign, for the dedication of a Church, which this Emperor's Father be|gan in that City, and he fini&s;h'd: Where his cau&s;e was re-examin'd,
<PB N="89" REF="59"> and condemn'd, and his former Sentence in the Synod of <HI>Tyre</HI> confirmed, and reviv'd: In the obtaining of which he made u&s;e of his Courtiers,<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Socr. l. <HI>2.</HI> c. <HI>5.</HI> Soz. l. <HI>3.</HI> c. <HI>5.</HI></NOTE> and their power; and it was un-Syno|dically done, (for the <HI>Eu&s;ebian</HI> Bi&s;hops were at fir&s;t the le&s;&s;er part of the Council) but the Bi&s;hops alone, made the Decree, and pa&s;s'd the Judiciary Sentence upon him; notwith&s;tanding that <HI>Con&s;tantius</HI> was there in his Per&s;on. And which is more; the &s;ame Synod which remov'd <HI>Athana&s;ius</HI> made <HI>Gregorius</HI> Bi&s;hop of <HI>Alexandria</HI> in his room: And we hence gain our other point, <HI>viz.</HI> That as the Rights of the Empire were not conceiv'd to enable the Emperor for the removal of a Bi&s;hop, once fixed in his See by the proper and righful hands; &s;o they were not conceiv'd to be competent for the enthroning and ju&s;tly po&s;&s;e&s;|&s;ing a Bi&s;hop in a See, tho' Synodically made void. And as <HI>Con&s;tantius</HI> did not <HI>dare</HI> to do the <HI>one;</HI> (for why may I not u&s;e the expre&s;&s;ion concerning him, &s;ince St. <HI>Au&s;tin</HI> us'd it of his Father in the &s;ame ca&s;e) &s;o nor the <HI>other,</HI> in his own right, as Emperor.</P>
<P>I &s;hall not here undertake to determine how far the depo&s;ing a Bi&s;hop by an Heretical Synod does oblige; or by an Ortho|dox one, if it proceed upon fal&s;e &s;ugge&s;tions, publickly known to be &s;uch, and to be malitiou&s;ly pro&s;ecuted: neither doth our pre&s;ent enquiry expect it of me. It &s;uffices us at pre&s;ent that <HI>Con&s;tantius</HI> did once think fit to make u&s;e of Bi&s;hops, for the de|po&s;ing <HI>Athana&s;ius;</HI> and did it not then by his own &s;ecular Arm: Hence I thus argue. That we cannot, upon common thoughts, apprehend, &s;ince as <HI>Con&s;tantine</HI> his Father had done before him in the Council of <HI>Tyre;</HI> &s;o <HI>Con&s;tantius</HI> the &s;on would not have proceeded again&s;t <HI>Athana&s;ius,</HI> and remov'd him in this Council by the Bi&s;hops, if he could have effectually done it by his own Power and Authority, &s;eparate from 'em, and independent upon them; if he had not been a&s;&s;ur'd, as his Father was, that his &s;ecular, worldly Arm was incompetent for it; or if he could have &s;atisfied him&s;elf, that he had had but a coordinate power with them in order to it. The Argument is much &s;tronger on <HI>Con&s;tantius</HI>'s &s;ide, &s;ince his di&s;plea&s;ure towards <HI>Atha|na&s;ius</HI> was much greater than <HI>Con&s;tontine</HI>'s: It was to exce&s;s, be|cau&s;e of his in&s;uperable adherence to the <HI>Nicene</HI> Faith; and be|came &s;o publick that the Heathen Hi&s;torian<NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg">Ammian. Marcell. l. <HI>15.</HI></NOTE> takes notice of it, and reports it to the world in the&s;e words: <HI>Athana&s;io &s;emper infen&s;us.</HI> Is it any ways credible that he &s;hould &s;eek, nay catch
<PB N="90" REF="60"> at the advantage of a Synod, as he did of this; put the i&s;&s;ue of &s;o de&s;ir'd a cau&s;e, and the conque&s;t of &s;o con&s;iderable a Per&s;on, to its hazard; nay u&s;e tricks in it, which he would have been a&s;ham'd of at another time; and employ his Courtiers to bring the Bi&s;hops, by threats and violence, to his &s;ide, when him&s;elf, (as &s;ome would have it) was at the &s;ame time, the &s;upream Judge of the cau&s;e, and could &s;ingly, and alone, effe|ctually and irrever&s;ibly have determin'd and decided it? His para&s;ite Courtiers upon who&s;e provocation he &s;o much the more de&s;ir'd it, could not be ignorant of &s;uch a right, if he could have pretended to it. And they would have &s;o order'd it, that no hands but his own &s;hould have executed it: But by no means can it be conceiv'd that the Emperor wou'd have been beholden to the Bi&s;hops for the doing of it: E&s;pecially &s;ince the charge of High trea&s;on lay again&s;t <HI>Athana&s;ius:</HI> In which ca&s;e Doctor <HI>Hody</HI><NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>Pag.</HI> 10.</NOTE> tells us, <HI>That if</HI> Cornelius <HI>had been depos'd by</HI> Decius, <HI>we have all the rea&s;on in the world to believe, that his deprivation would have been lookt upon by St.</HI> Cyprian <HI>as very rea&s;onable and ju&s;t,</HI> and that that great Archbi&s;hop would have &s;ubmitted to it: Though neither <HI>Con&s;tantius</HI> nor <HI>Con&s;tantine</HI> were aware that they had any &s;uch power: Nor would <HI>Athana&s;ius</HI> have &s;ubmitted to it, if they executed it upon him. And &s;urely, the Sun is not clearer at high noon, then that the&s;e two Emperors &s;upremacies were not conceiv'd to in&s;truct and enable them for it: Or, which is more, that the then Chri&s;tian World did not believe it &s;elf oblig'd to comply with them, if they had u&s;urped it.</P>
<P>It was not very long after the Council of <HI>Antioch,</HI> that the Council of <HI>Sardica</HI> wholly clear'd and acquitted <HI>Athana&s;ius:</HI> And<NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg"><HI>Socrat. l.</HI> 2. <HI>c.</HI> 11. 14 18. <HI>Theod. l.</HI> 2. <HI>c.</HI> 5. 11, 12. <HI>Soz. l.</HI> 3. <HI>c.</HI> 19.</NOTE> <HI>Gregorius</HI> dying within &s;ome few years, he was partly, by the interce&s;&s;ion, and partly, by the threats of <HI>Con&s;tans</HI> (who plainly told him that he would otherwi&s;e make War again&s;t him) call'd home by <HI>Con&s;tantius,</HI> and receiv'd by him, and the Church, with great joy; but into the City of <HI>Alexandria</HI> in triumph: And coming in his way to <HI>Jeru&s;alem, Maximus,</HI> who was Bi&s;hop there, called a Synod, at which all the Bi&s;hops of <HI>Palestine,</HI> who had &s;ub&s;crib'd to his bani&s;hment, except two confe&s;&s;ed their fault in doing of it, and that they were forced to it, and upon their &s;atisfaction, and de&s;ire, he receiv'd them into Communion with him.<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>Socrat. l.</HI> 2. <HI>c.</HI> 20, 21. <HI>Theod. l.</HI> 2. <HI>c.</HI> 12, 13.</NOTE> But alas! all this was like the morning dew, which vani&s;hes away: For<NOTE N="&Verbar;" PLACE="marg">Athan. Apol. p. <HI>8.25.</HI> Socrat. l. <HI>2.</HI> c. <HI>19.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Con&s;t<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ans</HI> died &s;oon after, and <HI>Magnentius</HI> rebell'd, and this gave fre&s;h occa&s;ion, and
<PB N="91" REF="60"> new courage, to that black combination of the <HI>Eu&s;ebians, Eunuchs,</HI> and Courtiers, to rally upon <HI>Athana&s;ius;</HI> who accus'd him to <HI>Constantius</HI> for making enmity betwixt him and his Brother <HI>Con&s;tans,</HI> and &s;iding with the Tyrant <HI>Magnentius;</HI> they pur&s;u'd their malice home, reinforcing the old, and bringing new in|formations again&s;t him; and a greater per&s;ecution then the former, was rai&s;ed upon the Catholicks:<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Ammian Mar|cel. l. <HI>15.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Constantius</HI> being pre|par'd for it by an exce&s;s of pride and haughtine&s;s, when the World &s;o va&s;tly enlarg'd his Empire, and he had &s;ubdued <HI>Mag|nentius;</HI> &s;o that the <HI>Homo&Taurus;&s;ian</HI> Bi&s;hops were bani&s;ht, and <HI>Atha|na&s;ius</HI> condemn'd to die, but he<NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg">Theod. &s;upra.</NOTE> miraculou&s;ly e&s;caped: Yet that did not &s;erve their turn, unle&s;s his &s;piritual deprivation, which had been denounc'd at <HI>Tyre,</HI> was confirm'd, and a di|vorce be made for ever betwixt him, and his Church and Peo|ple of <HI>Alexandria.</HI> Now, I do here again demand of our Ad|ver&s;aries: Did <HI>Constantius</HI> attempt to do this by his own power as Emperor, or was he at this time, aware of that Supremacy, which Doctor <HI>Hody</HI> inve&s;ts him, and his Predece&s;&s;ors, even <HI>Diocletian,</HI> withal, enabling him to di&s;&s;olve the relation betwixt a Bi&s;hop and his Flock, and make way for a Succe&s;&s;or to be brought in upon him? His two Brothers were now dead, and he was a kind of Univer&s;al Monarch; his enemies were under his feet;<NOTE N="&Verbar;" PLACE="marg">Ibid. &s;upra.</NOTE> <HI>Ammianus Marcellinus</HI> &s;ays, that he was hereupon, &s;o highly exalted in the opinion of his own Power, that, <HI>in dictating to others what he would have them to write,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Eternitatem meam aliquoties &s;ub&s;criberet ip&s;e dictando: &s;cri|bendoque propria manu, orbis totius &s;e Dominum appellaret.</NOTE> <HI>he &s;ometimes whi&s;per'd,</HI> My Eternity: <HI>And when he wrote with his own hand, he would name him&s;elf the Lord of the whole Earth:</HI> But it &s;eems he was not &s;en&s;ible that his <HI>Soveraign Coercive Power</HI> did in&s;truct him to remove a Bi&s;hop, or to place one in a full See; but wanted a Doctor <HI>Hody</HI> to inform him of that Imperial Right; who attain'd beyond his <HI>Eu|&s;ebians</HI> in that point, tho' they are known to be pretty good Arti&s;ts: And knowing no other power but the Church's, whereby he might effectually take <HI>Athana&s;ius</HI> from his See, for that end he call'd another Synod at<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Socrat. l. <HI>2.</HI> c. <HI>29.</HI> a Theod. H.E.l. <HI>20.</HI> c. <HI>15.</HI> Soz. l. <HI>4.</HI> c. <HI>8.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Millane</HI> in <HI>Italy,</HI> of the <HI>Eastern</HI> and <HI>Western</HI> Bi&s;hops; not to make a new Pro&s;cription again&s;t <HI>Atha|na&s;ius;</HI> but they being there convened, that he might (u&s;ing his old Methods) <HI>force them to a&s;&s;ent to the abdica|tion which was made by tho&s;e unju&s;t Judges,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg"><GAP DESC="foreign">.</NOTE> <HI>again&s;t certain Bi&s;hops in the Council of</HI> Tyre; among&s;t whom <HI>Athana&s;ius</HI> was one; who
<PB N="92" REF="61"> would thereby be effectually ca&s;t out of the Church, and he gain the advantage of the Authority and Corroboration of the <HI>We|stern</HI> Bi&s;hops, for what had been done in that Synod again&s;t that great <HI>Alexandrian</HI> Prelate; but e&s;pecially the Authority of the Bi&s;hop of <HI>Rome;</HI> who&s;e ab&s;ence from that and the <HI>Antiochian</HI> Synod, (in which la&s;t the <HI>Tyrian</HI> proceedings were confirm'd) was pleaded by &s;ome, for the invalidating the force of them both.</P>
<P><NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">L. <HI>15.</HI> p <HI>75, 76.</HI> Ed Lugdun. in <HI>12</HI> mo.</NOTE><HI>Ammianus Marcellinus</HI> gives a very good account of <HI>Con|&s;tantius</HI>'s calling that Synod, (tho' he repre&s;ents <HI>Athana&s;ius</HI> as a Conjurer at the &s;ame time: For which he is &s;o much the more excu&s;able, &s;ince <HI>Hadriamus</HI> the Emperor,<NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg">Nemo Chri|&s;tianorum Pre&s;|byter non Ma|thematicus non auru&s;pex in <HI>Favii vopi&s;ci Saturnino.</HI></NOTE> characterizeth every Bi&s;hop in <HI>Aegypt</HI> as &s;uch) but that account is to this effect: <HI>That</HI> Athana&s;ius <HI>being depo&s;ed by a Synod, and</HI> Con&s;tantius <HI>re|quiring</HI> Liberius <HI>Bi&s;hop of</HI> Rome, <HI>to &s;ub&s;cribe unto it, but he re|fu&s;ing;</HI> Id enim ille, Athana&s;io infen&s;us, licet &s;ciret impletum, tamen Authoritate qua potiuntur eternae urbis Epi&s;copi, firmari de&s;iderio nitebatur ardenti. <HI>Tho' he knew his Depo&s;ition was com|plete, being made by two Councils, one of</HI> Tyre, <HI>and the other of</HI> Antioch, <HI>yet he very much de&s;ir'd to have it confirm'd by the</HI> Bi|&s;hop <HI>of</HI> Rome: <HI>In order to which, he call'd all the</HI> We&s;tern <HI>Bi&s;hops together at</HI> Millane, <HI>by which means he expected to have the advan|tage of prevailing, through his Power and menaces, managed by his Courtiers and</HI> Eu&s;ebians <HI>over</HI> Liberius, <HI>together with the rest; and obtain their a&s;&s;ent.</HI> And this is a full vindication of <HI>Con&s;tantius</HI>'s &s;ence of the nece&s;&s;ity of a Church Power for the effecting <HI>Athana&s;ius</HI>'s depo&s;ition; and of his own incompetency to have done without it.</P>
<P>I know the <HI>Romani&s;t</HI> Doctors &s;ay; that he &s;o &s;olicitou&s;ly re|quir'd <HI>Liberius</HI>'s con&s;ent, becau&s;e neither the Synod of <HI>Millane,</HI> nor tho&s;e of <HI>Tyre</HI> and <HI>Antioch,</HI> nor twenty more, were, or would be valid, without the concurrence of the Bi&s;hop of <HI>Rome:</HI> And they hence a&s;&s;ert his Univer&s;al Pa&s;tour&s;hip, as a thing &s;o well known, that the <HI>Heathens</HI> were not ignorant of it: And <HI>Vale&s;ius</HI> doth it, in particular, in his<NOTE PLACE="marg">In Socrat H.E. l. <HI>2.</HI> c. <HI>8.</HI> ed. Vale&s;, l. <HI>2.</HI> c. <HI>13.</HI> Ed. Colon. &amp;c. <HI>5.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Annotations</HI> upon this following Pa&s;&s;age of Pope <HI>Julius;</HI> in which he contends, that they ought to have called him to the Council of <HI>Antioch, &s;ince the Church Canon forbids any Decree to be made without the Bi&s;hop of</HI> Rome. But, if they have any bottom from this Ca|non for that a&s;&s;ertion, it &s;eems very apparent that they have none from <HI>Ammianus,</HI> in the above cited place: For he there
<PB N="93" REF="61"> &s;ays, <HI>(&s;ciret impletum)</HI> that <HI>Constantius,</HI> was very well &s;atisfi<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">d with the validity of <HI>Athana&s;ius</HI>'s Synodical Depo&s;ition, in the Synods of <HI>Tyre</HI> and <HI>Antioch;</HI> and his great de&s;ire to have the Bi&s;hop of <HI>Rome</HI>'s concurrence in it, was not becau&s;e he believ'd him to have, <HI>Pote&s;tatem privativam,</HI> a power to null and render it ineffectual; but <HI>cumulativam,</HI> a power to add &s;trength and vigor to it, as the fir&s;t and mo&s;t potent Bi&s;hop in Chri&s;ten|dom.</P>
<P>And, as to <HI>Julius</HI>'s plea (to &s;ay &s;ome thing of it) I am well a&s;&s;ur'd that there was no &s;uch univer&s;al Canon in tho&s;e days, becau&s;e there is none &s;uch extant, nor any foot&s;teps of it. And if we con&s;ult the Epi&s;tle at large, in <HI>Athana&s;ius</HI>'s &s;econd<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>Pag.</HI> 744.</NOTE> <HI>Apology,</HI> we &s;hall find, that when he pleads a Cu&s;tome, <HI>ut nobis primum &s;cribatur, ut hinc quod justum e&s;t definiri po&s;&s;it, That the Bi&s;hop of</HI> Rome <HI>&s;hould be fir&s;t wrote unto, and the Definitions come from him;</HI> he contends only for the Authority of the pre&s;ent <HI>Roman</HI> Synod, which he had then call'd, for the deciding <HI>Athana&s;ius</HI>'s cau&s;e; to which the <HI>Eu&s;ebians</HI> refus'd to come<NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg">Athana&s;. de Synod. Ep. ad S<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">lita. pag. <HI>818, 819.</HI></NOTE> upon trifling rea&s;ons: Neither, I &s;ay, will any Church Law or Practice be found in tho&s;e early day, which makes it unlawful for a Metropolitan to have a Synod, where the Bi&s;hop of <HI>Rome</HI> is not pre&s;ent, or, if he has not notice of it: Within a few years after the Council of <HI>Antioch,</HI> there was a Law made in the <HI>Sardican</HI> Synod, <HI>That if any Bi&s;hop found him&s;elf injur'd by his Comprovincial, he might ap|peal to the Bi&s;hop of</HI> Rome, <HI>and that his determination &s;hould be good:</HI> but how could they appeal to him, if he was to be pre&s;ent in every Provincial Synod? Or what good would it do them? And this po&s;&s;ibly might be the <HI>Law of the Church,</HI> which <HI>Julius</HI> is &s;aid, in<NOTE N="&Verbar;" PLACE="marg"><HI>L.</HI> 2. <HI>c:</HI> 4: <GAP DESC="foreign">.</NOTE> <HI>Theodorit,</HI> to have followed, when he call'd <HI>Athana&s;ius,</HI> and the <HI>Eu&s;ebians</HI> (they having inform'd <HI>Julius</HI> again&s;t him) to <HI>Rome,</HI> that <HI>Athana&s;ius</HI> might there plead his cau&s;e before them; but this &s;uppo&s;es &s;ome Provincial Synod, in which the Bi&s;hop of <HI>Rome</HI> had never &s;at as a Judge: So far is it from for|bidding them: Be&s;ides <HI>Julius</HI> requires the <HI>Eu&s;ebians</HI> to bring their cau&s;e before him to <HI>Rome,</HI> by rea&s;on of its greater note, and as a City of greater eminency in the World, according to the account, we have of his Epi&s;tle in <HI>Atha<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">a&s;ius.</HI><NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Apolog. pag. <HI>744.</HI></NOTE></P>
<P>But what ever the advantage was which <HI>Con&s;tantius</HI> promi&s;ed him&s;elf in calling this Council of <HI>Millane,</HI> and having the Bi|&s;hop of <HI>Rome</HI>'s pre&s;ence in it, he was wholly bawk'd of it, and it came to nothing: For very few of the <HI>Ea&s;tern</HI> Bi&s;hops<NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg">Socrat. Soz. ibid. &s;upra.</NOTE> ap|pear'd,
<PB N="94" REF="62"> by rea&s;on of the great age of &s;ome of them, and the great length of the Journey; which pretence kept others away: But above three hundred Bi&s;hops came to it from the <HI>We&s;t,</HI> who &s;oon over rul'd tho&s;e few <HI>Orientals</HI> that were pre&s;ent; and requir'd that the Sentence which had been pro|nounc'd again&s;t <HI>Athana&s;ius</HI> at <HI>Tyre,</HI> &s;hould be confirm'd; the <HI>Occidentals</HI> alledging that the&s;e accu&s;ations which they brought again&s;t him were fal&s;e and &s;candalous, and managed with a de&s;ign to over-throw the <HI>Nicene</HI> Faith: and upon this the Council was di&s;&s;olved. But <HI>Con&s;tantius,</HI> like a &s;he Bear bereav'd of her whelps, takes hence an opportunity to exerci&s;e his further rage and arbitrarine&s;s upon the Church; and, as we ob&s;erv'd a little before out of <HI>Ammianus,</HI> that he had wrote him&s;elf <HI>Lord of the whole Earth,</HI> and a&s;&s;umed the attribute of <HI>eternity,</HI> he now makes him &s;elf Lord of the things in <HI>Heaven,</HI> which the Father committed to the <HI>Son,</HI> and the Son to the Church Officers; without any regard to the contrary practice of his Father <HI>Con|&s;tantine,</HI> and the Con&s;titution of the Empire, or, which is more to the In&s;titution and Practice of the Church of God. And as<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Ep. ad &s;olitar. vitam agentes. p. <HI>861.</HI> Vid. Sulpit Se|ver. l. <HI>2.</HI> Et Hilar. lib. ad Con&s;tan|tium in fine.</NOTE> <HI>Athana&s;ius</HI> gives us the account, <HI>He made his Palace the Tribunal, for the hearing of &s;piritual cau&s;es, and him&s;elf the Chief Judge of them: and when he &s;aw the Accu&s;ers to be perplexed, and at a stand, him&s;elf helped them out; and, through his power, tho&s;e that where fal&s;ly accu&s;ed had not liberty to &s;peak for them&s;elves: And par|ticularly, when the Catholick Bi&s;hops made it to appear, that</HI><NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg">Ath<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">na&s;. ibid. &s;upra p. <HI>821.</HI></NOTE> Atha|na&s;ius <HI>was innocent, becau&s;e</HI> Valens <HI>and</HI> Ur&s;acius, <HI>who were his ac|cu&s;ers, had repented, and that their evidence ought not to be receiv'd; ri&s;ing up he &s;aid,</HI> I am <HI>Athana&s;ius</HI>'s Accu&s;er, believe them in my Name. And when <HI>Paulinus</HI> Bi&s;hop of <HI>Trevers, Lucifer</HI> of <HI>Sardinia, Eu&s;ebius</HI> of <HI>Ver&s;ellis, Diony&s;ius</HI> of <HI>Millane</HI> and (as <HI>Theodorit</HI> &s;ays) <HI>Liberius</HI> of <HI>Rome,</HI> were call'd before him, and commanded by him to &s;ub&s;cribe to his Imperial Sentence again&s;t <HI>Athana&s;ius,</HI> they being amazed at his new mea&s;ures, and telling him that <HI>they were not according to the Eccle&s;ia&s;tical Canon,</HI> he immediatly adjoyn'd, &Verbar; <HI>that which I will is to be a Law: Either obey me, as the Bi&s;hops of</HI> Syria <HI>have done, or I'le bani&s;h you al&s;o:</HI> And thus in his own Right and Name, <HI>Athana&s;ius</HI> was remov'd, with the ju&s;t now mention'd Catholick Bi&s;hops: Of which <HI>Socrates, Theodorit,</HI> and <HI>Sozomen,</HI> gives us an account.</P>
<P>Neither was <HI>Constantius</HI> more willing and forwar'd to this u&s;ur|pation, then his <HI>Eu&s;ebians, Eunuchs,</HI> and <HI>Courtiers</HI> were to own
<PB N="95" REF="62"> and &s;econd him in it: And, accordingly, we find in <HI>Athana|&s;ius</HI><NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Ep. de S<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">n<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters">. Ar<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">min. &amp; Se|leuci. p. <HI>870. 871.</HI></NOTE> cited by<NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg">&V;ti &s;upra l. <HI>2.</HI> <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">&punc; <HI>29.</HI> ver&s;us medium.</NOTE> <HI>Socrates,</HI> that, <HI>in&s;tead of Christ, they named another Lord, viz.</HI> Con&s;tantius: <HI>And at the &s;ame time that they denied the Son of God to be eternal, they &s;aid the Emperor was eternal; he being the man who gave &s;trength to their ungodline&s;s&mdash;and, as the</HI> Cata|phrigians <HI>write</HI> Maximilla <HI>and</HI> Montanus, <HI>&s;o, the&s;e write</HI> Con|&s;tantius, <HI>their Master, in&s;tead of Chri&s;t:</HI> And &s;urely they had need, as the <HI>Montani&s;ts</HI> before them, to have had a new <HI>Prophe&s;y</HI> to in|&s;truct them in the&s;e things; &s;ince, according to the old one, it is <HI>Chri&s;t</HI>'s peculiar, as the <HI>Mediator,</HI> to purcha&s;e a Church, and govern it, as well as to &s;atisfy for the &s;ins of it: the latter of which was executed once for all upon the Cro&s;s; and the former is alwaies to be excuted; but never by any, unle&s;s the right and power to do it be fir&s;t deriv'd in a ju&s;t &s;ucce&s;&s;ion, unto them, from him that<NOTE N="&Verbar;" PLACE="marg">1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 1.13.</NOTE> <HI>was crucified.</HI></P>
<P>This is the fir&s;t time that this judicial Power (deriv'd only by Chri&s;t on his Apo&s;tles, and their Succe&s;&s;ors, the Bi&s;hops) hath been a&s;&s;um'd by the Empire, as &s;uch: And the&s;e time &s;erving <HI>Eu&s;ebians</HI> are the fir&s;t, likewi&s;e, (of any that call'd them&s;elves Bi&s;hops) who recognized, and &s;ubmitted to it, and believ'd it to be competent, of it &s;elf alone, and by its own virtue and influence to make way for a <HI>Succe&s;&s;or,</HI> by a Lay deprivation, &s;o as the relation and dependance between a Bi&s;hop and his people &s;hould be broken off, and cea&s;e, upon it. Under what circum|&s;tances, and by what motives, it was done, hath been abundantly made to appear: They are &s;urely very black and dete&s;table. And if Doctor <HI>Hody,</HI> and his party, &s;hall think fit to call them their <HI>Praecentors,</HI> and examples, in the ca&s;e of their pre&s;ent <HI>Suc|ce&s;&s;ors</HI> into full Sees; (whether they allow their proceedings to be <HI>unju&s;t,</HI> or <HI>uncanonical,</HI> or otherwi&s;e, it matters not: Their principles will bear them out the one way, as well as the other.) Much good may they do them: I know others, and as good as they, that have neither allow'd their actions to be lawful, nor to be any ju&s;t pre&s;idents to them&s;elves, or others, but have de&s;pi&s;ed and rejected them: Of whom I here give this ac|count.</P>
<P>No le&s;s a man then <HI>Athana&s;ius</HI> is one of them: Who pain<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">y tells <HI>Con&s;tantius,</HI><NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Ep. ad S<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="3 letters">tar. p. <HI>845.</HI></NOTE> <HI>That he therein undertakes the protection of a wicked Religion, and breaks the Ordinance of Chri&s;t: When was it heard from the beginning of the World, that the Church's Sentence did receive its Authority from the Emperor? Or when was the Emperor's
<PB N="96" REF="63"> Verdict receiv'd for Judgment? There have been many Synods, and many Church-Sentences; but the Fathers never endeavour'd to engage the Prince in them, nor hath the Prince him&s;elf been curious concerning them.</HI></P>
<P>He, again, thus &s;ays of <HI>Con&s;tantius: What hath he omitted here, which doth not belong to Antichri&s;t? Or what more can he do when he &s;hall come? Or will he not find at his coming, an expedite way made ready by the&s;e doings for the exerci&s;e of his deceits?</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>bid. p.</HI> 8<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">0, 861</NOTE> <HI>Since he has made his Palace the Tribunal for the hearing tho&s;e cau&s;es, and him&s;elf the Chief Prince of them, which belong'd to the place of Eccle&s;ia&s;tical cognizance.&mdash;That the Judgment is not of a</HI> Ro|man, <HI>or Civil, Bu&s;ine&s;s, in which his arbitratory Deci&s;ion may be acquie&s;c<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">d in, as he is an Emperor, but of a Bi&s;hop to which his pre|rogative does dot extend.</HI></P>
<P>And farther: <HI>The&s;e grievances are very exce&s;&s;ive, and the practice of him alone who hath the Image of Antichri&s;t: For who is it that, &s;eeing him, by his Decrees, to make him&s;elf a Prince of the Bi&s;hops, and to pre&s;ide in Eccle&s;ia&s;tical Judicatures, may not justly &s;ay, that he is the very &s;ame</HI> Abomination of De&s;olation,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Ibib p <HI>862.</HI></NOTE> <HI>which was fore|told by the Prophet</HI> Daniel? <HI>For, when he puts on the garment of Christianity, and enters into the holy Places, and &s;itting there, lays wa&s;t the Churches, abrogating the Canons, and, by force, compelling that his Decrees do obtain; who, at any time, &s;hall dare to &s;ay, that this is a peaceable time among Chri&s;tians? And not rather a Per&s;ecution, and &s;uch a Per&s;ecution as hath not been before, and perhaps, no one hath made but that Son of iniquity.</HI></P>
<P>I cannot forbear to add the&s;e following re&s;entments which the mo&s;t holy <HI>Athana&s;ius</HI> had upon the &s;ame occa|&s;ion.</P>
<P><HI>Truth is not to be preach'd by &s;words and darts, and a military hand; but by per&s;wading and con&s;ulting: But, what freedom of per&s;wading is there, where there is a fear of the Emperor? Or what Con&s;ultation is that,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Ibid. p. <HI>831.</HI></NOTE> <HI>in which he that contradicts hath bani&s;hment or death for his rewards?&mdash;He, (i. e.</HI> Con&s;tantius) <HI>guided by no rea&s;on, compels all by force and power: So that it is evident to all Men, that their Sentence is not Divine, but Humane: And they indeed, have no King but</HI> Cae&s;ar: <HI>For they do what they think fit in the Church by him.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Why doth he pretend to have regard to the Eccle&s;ia&s;tical Canon, who contrives to do all things again&s;t it? What Canon is that which provides,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Ibid. p. <HI>844.</HI></NOTE> <HI>that he who is to be a Bi&s;hop &s;hall be &s;ent out of the
<PB N="97" REF="63"> Palace?</HI> Or <HI>what kind of Canon is that, which licen&s;es Souldiers to invade the Churches? Or in&s;tructs the Secular Officers, and the Eunuchs, who have no rea&s;on, to Lord it over the Churches? And to publi&s;h, by an Edict, the Sentences of tho&s;e who are Bi&s;hops in name only?</HI></P>
<P><HI>If the Church judgeth the&s;e things, what can the Emperor have in common with her? And if the threats of the Emperor guid all, what need is there of Bi&s;hops in name only?</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Ibid. p. <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="3 letters">.</NOTE> <HI>Was it ever known from the beginning of the World, that the Sentence of the Church had its Authority from the Emperor?</HI></P>
<P><HI>He hath done an unheard of thing in</HI> Rome, <GAP DESC="foreign">.<NOTE PLACE="marg">Ibid. p. <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="3 letters">.</NOTE> <HI>It is truly a repre&s;entation of the communion of Antichrist: And, appointing his Palace, in &s;tead of the Church, and three Eunuchs to be pre&s;ent in the place of the Believers, and three of his Scout Bi&s;hops, one</HI> Felix <HI>for&s;ooth, was made a Bi&s;hop, worthy of them.</HI> We may &s;ee, that <HI>Athana&s;ius</HI> had not the &s;ame opinion of <HI>Felix</HI> as Bi&s;hop of <HI>Rome</HI> that Doctor <HI>Hody</HI> has.</P>
<P>The eminently renown'd <HI>Ho&s;ius</HI> was particularly concern'd upon the &s;ame account; and oppo&s;ed <HI>Constantius</HI> with no le&s;s zeal and courage, then <HI>Athana&s;ius</HI> did: who&s;e advice to him,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Ibid. p. <HI>639.</HI></NOTE> and admonition, upon his a&s;&s;uming the depo&s;ing Power, we have thus tran&s;mitted to us by <HI>Athana&s;ius. Pray cea&s;e and remember that thou art mortal: Fear the Day of Judgement: Keep thy &s;elf pure for that day: Do not concern thy &s;elf in Eccle&s;ia&s;tical affairs, nor command us in this nature: But rather learn tho&s;e things of us. God hath committed to thee the Empire; and he has intrusted us with tho&s;e things that belong to the Church: And as, he who with malignant eyes reproacheth thy Empire, oppo&s;eth the Divine Ordinan|ce; &s;o, do thou beware lea&s;t drawing to thee tho&s;e things which be|long to the Church, thou become&s;t thereby, lyable to a great guilt. It is written, give tho&s;e things unto</HI> Cae&s;ar <HI>which are</HI> Cae&s;ar<HI>'s, and tho&s;e things which are God's unto God, It is neither lawful for us, O Em|peror, to hold the earthly Empire, neither ha&s;t thou the power of holy things, I write the&s;e things out of my care of thy &s;ouls health.</HI></P>
<P>And the abovemention'd five great Bi&s;hops of <HI>Rome, Vercellis, Trevers, Sardinia,</HI> and <HI>Millane,</HI> did not &s;pare him neither, when they argued the point with him, in his Palace:<NOTE PLACE="marg">Ibid. p. <HI>831.</HI></NOTE> As we have it al&s;o in <HI>Athana&s;ius.</HI> But they told him plainly, <HI>That he was un|pre&s;idented, in that he acted &s;o notoriou&s;ly again&s;t the Church Laws: That the Kingdom which he po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ed, was not his, but God's; of whom he receiv'd it: And that he is to be fear'd, lea&s;t he &s;uddenly take that
<PB N="98" REF="64"> away from him which he had given him: They denounc'd the day of Judgment again&s;t him; and advi&s;ed him, that he would not cor|rupt the Eccle&s;ia&s;tick affairs, nor mingle the</HI> Roman <HI>Empire with the Church Constitutions; nor introduce the</HI> Arian <HI>Here&s;y into the Church of God.</HI></P>
<P>To which<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">H. E l. <HI>2.</HI> c. <HI>18.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Theodorit</HI> adds; that when <HI>Con&s;tantius</HI> would have forced them, in his Palace, to give their con&s;ent to <HI>Athana&s;ius</HI>'s abdication, and to make a new Faith; the foremention'd Bi|&s;hops not only refu&s;ed, but openly argu'd, and told him, that he <GAP DESC="foreign"> <HI>commanded unju&s;t and ungodly things:</HI> for which he cites<NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg"><HI>Apol.</HI> 2.</NOTE> <HI>Athana&s;ius</HI> as a concurring Authority. And &s;ays, that he u&s;ed the&s;e following words among others, upon the occa&s;ion of the Emperor's invading the Church rights: <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>who can remember the&s;e things?</HI> &amp;c.</P>
<P>And now, the&s;e great Authorities &s;eem<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> to make it very plain, that the Catholicks, at this time of day, (for &s;urely we may conclude them to have been all of the &s;ame mind with the&s;e above named) did not place this cu&s;tome and <HI>Law of the Church,</HI> by which the fixing a Bi&s;hop in his See, and the continuing him there, or removing him, and making way, upon his removal, for a <HI>Succe&s;&s;or,</HI> is &s;ubjected in Church hands, and that the Prince is not permitted to perform it without them: Nothing, I &s;ay, &s;eems more plain, then that the&s;e Chri&s;tians did not place the&s;e actions, I &s;ay they did not place them among&s;t &s;ome other indif|ferences in her polity, which were not &s;o <HI>&s;acred</HI> and <HI>indefei&s;able,</HI> but that <HI>&s;he readily</HI> &s;uperceded, nay <HI>Sacrificed,</HI> them, <HI>when&s;oever nece&s;&s;ity requir'd it, to the peace and tranquility of the Church:</HI> But on the contrary, that their ob&s;ervation was immutably retain'd by them, tho' the wor&s;t of con&s;equences did attend it, from any, either <HI>Soveraign, Coercive Power, or irre&s;i&s;cible Party;</HI> the evils being greater, by a relaxation, and complyance, then any future good that can po&s;&s;ibly accrue unto the Church of God. Surely the exerci&s;e of that power, the violation of which is a <HI>breach of the Ordinance of Chri&s;t, the work of Antichrist, unju&s;t and ungodly, unpre|&s;idented</HI> by its novelty, <HI>and not to be receiv'd into a Chri&s;tians thoughts,</HI> (for as &s;uch they characterize it, and wor&s;e, in the foremention'd citations) is not an indifferent thing; nor can they, who have &s;o &s;tigmatized it, be conceiv'd to have thought it a matter of &s;o little moment, as Doctor <HI>Hody</HI> does: Surely the&s;e fir&s;t Chri&s;tians did not think the <HI>outward peace and tranquillity</HI> of the Church to be an equivalent for the damage &s;he would receive, by &s;uch a &s;ecular
<PB N="99" REF="64"> Mini&s;tration, if vouch'd, and &s;ubmitted to, by them. What per|&s;ecutions did they not &s;uffer, and patiently undergo, in the lo&s;s of their E&s;tates and Liberties, nay in their capacities of offi|ciating to their people in holy things, rather than yeild in this point? And though we cannot prove, that any one <HI>Bi&s;hop in the three fir&s;t Centuries was di&s;own'd by the Church, becau&s;e he was put into the place of another depo&s;ed by the civil authority,</HI> (as the Doctor un|rea&s;onably demands of us) becau&s;e no one Emperor, within that &s;pace of time did act &s;uch a work of <HI>Antichri&s;t:</HI> Yet &s;ince the Doctor has extended his <HI>Epoche,</HI> in another<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">To the Reader.</NOTE> place, <HI>to this day:</HI> We can prove to the contrary, and that it has been done over and over again by more than one Bi&s;hop, &s;ince the&s;e following mo&s;t eminent Bi&s;hops in the fourth <HI>Century, viz. Liberius, Athana&s;ius, Paulinus, Lucifer Calaritanus, Eu&s;ebius,</HI> and <HI>Diony&s;ius,</HI> are recorded to have di&s;own'd their Succe&s;&s;ors plac'd upon them by <HI>Con&s;tan|tius,</HI> who had <HI>unjustly</HI> and uncanonically depriv'd them, becau&s;e he depriv'd them meerly by a &s;ecular Force, believing it in|&s;ufficient to void a See, tho' that force be <HI>Sovereign, Coercive</HI> and <HI>Irre&s;i&s;tible:</HI> (As &s;urely <HI>Con&s;tantius</HI>'s arm was) and if incompetent to effect a ju&s;t vacancy, then incompetent al&s;o to legitimate a Succe&s;&s;ion upon it.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="2" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. II.</HEAD>
<P>I Am very well a&s;&s;ured that Doctor <HI>Hody</HI> will here reply, as he does upon &s;everal other occa&s;ions and &s;ay; that though the deprivation of the foremention'd Bi&s;hops was <HI>unju&s;t</HI> and <HI>uncanonical,</HI> yet that was not the rea&s;on, why tho&s;e Bi&s;hops refus'd to acknowledg and &s;ubmit unto it, and to the <HI>Succe&s;&s;ors</HI> which were placed over them: But becau&s;e tho&s;e <HI>Succe&s;&s;ors</HI> were <HI>Arians:</HI> If they had been Orthodox, they would have acquie&s;ced and communicated with them. But this will be found one of the Doctor's mi&s;takes, which he is frequently guilty of. For<NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg">L, 2. <HI>c.</HI> 15.</NOTE> <HI>Theodorit</HI> &s;ays in expre&s;s words, that the Synod of <HI>Millane</HI> was conveen'd on purpo&s;e to give credit and Authority to <HI>Athana&s;ius</HI>'s depo&s;ition, in the Synod of <HI>Tyre.</HI> And the other two Hi&s;torians &s;ay the &s;ame in effect: But when <HI>Con&s;tantius</HI> found that he was not able to carry it, the <HI>We&s;tern</HI> Bi&s;hops running as one man again&s;t it, he remov'd the Synod into his Palace, re&s;olving to carry it by his own Authority and Power: And in the virtue of it, he there depos'd <HI>Athana&s;ius</HI> with <HI>a non ob&s;tante;</HI> although the Law, the
<PB N="100" REF="65"> Canons, Ju&s;tice, and all the <HI>We&s;tern</HI> Bi&s;hops, were again&s;t it, and di&s;allow'd it: And this is the u&s;urped right and power, which the true Church of God, there, and then, oppo&s;ed, and prote&s;ted again&s;t: not fearing the wrath of the King, nor the per&s;ecutions, which fell upon them, by rea&s;on of it.</P>
<P>For the further clearing of this point, not only in relation to the Council of <HI>Millane,</HI> but to all the Councils which were be|tween it and the Council of <HI>Nicea,</HI> and a while after it; in which the <HI>Eu&s;ebians</HI><NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Vid. Socrat. l. <HI>1.</HI> c. <HI>19.</HI> Theod. <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">, <HI>1.</HI> c. <HI>14.</HI> Jer. adv. Lucifer.</NOTE> plaid their parts again&s;t <HI>Athana&s;ius,</HI> and the Ca|tholick Bi&s;hops, which adher'd unto him; I do here undertake to prove, that from the time that <HI>Ariani&s;m</HI> was condemn'd, and ca&s;t out of the Church, by the Fathers of the Council of <HI>Nicea,</HI> (upon which Condemnation, not only the Bi&s;hops which had oppo&s;ed the Council, but <HI>Arius</HI> him&s;elf, came in, and &s;ub&s;crib'd to the Article of <HI>one Substance,</HI> and renounc'd their oppo&s;ite he|re&s;y) until &s;ome little time after the Council of <HI>Millane, Ariani&s;m</HI> was not openly a&s;&s;erted and maintained in any of tho&s;e Councils, held within that interval, much le&s;s was it re&s;tor'd, &s;etled and made Law, in the Church and Empire; as the Doctrine of the <HI>eternal Generation</HI> had been e&s;tabli&s;ht before, and was, after <HI>Va|lens</HI>'s Per&s;ecution, when <HI>Theodo&s;ius</HI> corroborated the <HI>Nicene</HI> Faith, by his &s;ecular arm, as <HI>Con&s;tantine</HI> did, upon that Council's de|claring for it: But on the contrary, <HI>Con&s;tantius</HI> and every &s;ingle Bi&s;hop, &s;ome time or other; and every Council alwaies, if it did any thing concerning it, continued in appearance to abhor it: And accordingly, declar'd and prote&s;ted again&s;t it. And profe&s;&s;ed and maintain'd the coe&s;&s;ential and coeternal Nature of the Father and the Son, in the full &s;en&s;e and importance, of the <HI>Nicene</HI> Faith: They only omitted the word <GAP DESC="foreign"> or <HI>con&s;ub|&s;tantial;</HI> but without making any exceptions again&s;t it. And they thought (at lea&s;t pretended, that, &s;ince the thing and My|&s;tery were receiv'd, the expre&s;&s;ion and explication might make di&s;putes, but would add nothing, in reality to it. And what ever el&s;e <HI>Con&s;tantine, Con&s;tantius,</HI> and their <HI>Eu&s;ebius,</HI> contriv'd and practi&s;ed again&s;t <HI>Athana&s;ius,</HI> was in order to his Depo&s;ition, and final removing, from his Mini&s;tery, and Church, at <HI>Alexan|dria,</HI> which thing they endeavour'd to effect, not by articling again&s;t him as an <HI>Homo&Taurus;&s;ian;</HI> they did not once attempt it; but by arraigning him as one, <HI>That impo&s;ed tribute on she Emperor's Subjects; that was a traytor and rebel to</HI> Con&s;tantius, <HI>in that he &s;upply'd one</HI> Philumenus <HI>with mony, who was his enemy; that he made
<PB N="101" REF="65"> enmity betwixt him and his Brother</HI> Con&s;tans, <HI>and a&s;&s;isted</HI> Mag|nentius, <HI>the Tyrant, again&s;t him; that one time, he &s;topp'd the gift of corn which the Emperors liberality be&s;tow'd on</HI> Con&s;tantinople, <HI>and was to come from</HI> Egypt; <HI>another time converted it to his own u&s;e; that he murder'd</HI> Ar&s;enius, <HI>and practic'd Magick; that he violently entred into</HI> I&s;chyras<HI>'s Chappel, and broke his con&s;ecrated Chalice; violated the Canons of the Church; was guilty of Incontinency;</HI> &amp;c. Of which our Hi&s;tories have given an account at large. And as they proceeded upon one, or more of the&s;e, when they actually de|pos'd him, and put <HI>Gregorius</HI> in his Chair; &s;o, when he refus'd to &s;ubmit to their Sentence, and own the <HI>Succe&s;&s;or,</HI> which they put upon him, and the Catholick Bi&s;hops, his Brethren, united with him in it; it was becau&s;e they lookt upon his removal to be unju&s;t and uncanonical; whether as executed by their Bi|&s;hops in their Synod, or as executed by the Emperor, apar<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> from them; and in both re&s;pects to be incompetent. And it was upon this account, that <HI>Athana&s;ius</HI> &s;uffer'd exile under <HI>Con|&s;tantine;</HI> and he with the other Bi&s;hops, afterwards underwent tho&s;e heavy per&s;ecutions under <HI>Com&s;tantius,</HI> not inferior to the <HI>Decian</HI> and <HI>Diocletian</HI> cruelties; only, they were not capital: The&s;e holy Prelates believing them&s;elves oblig'd to <HI>re&s;i&s;t</HI> even <HI>unto Blood,</HI> in defence and maintenance of the rightful Succe&s;&s;ion, according to the rules of the Church, as in defence and mainte|nance of the <HI>Nicene</HI> Faith: And that they might no more di&s;pen&s;e with a <HI>Succe&s;&s;or</HI> upon other terms, then tho&s;e which the Church allows, then with a fal&s;e article in their Creed: And, al&s;o, that neither a Synod, nor the Empire, though Chri&s;tian, could legitimate the one, more then the other: And that every <HI>Depri|vation</HI> which is <HI>unju&s;t</HI> and <HI>uncanonical,</HI> is likewi&s;e incompetent, and does not oblige the <HI>Colledge</HI> of Bi&s;hops to own or &s;ubmit to it: (though Doctor <HI>Hody</HI> is of another mind) they, herein, treading in the &s;teps of the Ancient Church before <HI>Con&s;tantine,</HI> of which I may hereafter give an account.</P>
<P>And now, if this be made appear, and prov'd; as I am well a&s;&s;ur'd it may, by notorious and undeniable matter of fact in Hi|&s;tory: (the fir&s;t part of it, relating to the <HI>Ariani&s;me</HI> of that time, was &s;tarted, and a&s;&s;erted, by a late and learned Bi&s;hop<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Bi&s;hop <HI>Parke<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"></HI> of Religion and Loyalty. part. <HI>2</HI></NOTE> of our own, but not managed by him with our pre&s;ent de&s;ign) there will be no appearing ground left, that the great <HI>Alexandrian</HI> Primate and his Catholick Brethren, &s;hould plead the <HI>Ariani&s;m</HI> of the <HI>Succe&s;&s;ion,</HI> as the rea&s;on why they did not &s;ubmit to their
<PB N="102" REF="66"> <HI>Deprivations,</HI> and receive their impo&s;ed <HI>Succe&s;&s;ors:</HI> But no man of common &s;en&s;e, can apprehend that they pleaded it (if they did at all) as the only rea&s;on; or can think, but that the inju&s;tice, and incompetency, of the whole, was a &s;ufficient bar to their clo&s;ing with, and &s;umi&s;&s;ion to it. And this I &s;hall make appear, by proving the matter of fact: Which I undertake to do, as follows. And,</P>
<P>Fir&s;t: When the Synod which conveen'd at <HI>Jeru&s;alem</HI> in the days of <HI>Con&s;tantine,</HI> for the Dedication of a Church, which that Religious Emperour had built there; the Fathers of which it con&s;i&s;ted, who repre&s;ented the Churches of <HI>Macedonia, Pan|nonia, My&s;ia, Per&s;ia, Bythinia, Thrace, Cilicia, Cappadocia, Siria, Me&s;opotamia, Phenitia, Arabia, Palestine, Egypt, Africa,</HI> and <HI>The|bes,</HI> according to<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">De Vita Con|&s;tantini, l. <HI>4.</HI> c. <HI>43.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Eu&s;ebius</HI>'s ennumeration of them: The&s;e Bi&s;hops (I &s;ay) receiv'd, indeed, <HI>Arius</HI> into the Communion of their re&s;pective<NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg">Socrat. l. <HI>1.</HI> c. <HI>22.</HI></NOTE> Churches, being directed, by <HI>Con&s;tantine</HI>'s Letters, to do it: But it was upon the &s;uppo&s;ed truth of his Re|pentance, agreeable to the <HI>Nicene</HI> Faith. And the <HI>Euzoian</HI> Creed, which he and <HI>Euzoius</HI><NOTE N="&Verbar;" PLACE="marg"><HI>Soz. l.</HI> 2. <HI>c.</HI> 26, 27.</NOTE> offer'd for their purgation, mu&s;t be own'd to bear a Catholick &s;en&s;e; though it was &s;o &s;lighly compos'd, that it was interpretable on either &s;ide;<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Ibid.</NOTE> as <HI>Sozomen</HI> has well taken notice; and &s;ays it was the &s;en&s;e of others be&s;ides him&s;elf: Wh<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ther the Synod had a ju&s;t in&s;ight into it, or were willing to connive, or were too much bia&s;&s;ed by <HI>Con|stantine</HI>'s Letters; as he was too much influenced by his Si&s;ter<NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg">Ibid.</NOTE> <HI>Con&s;tantia,</HI> and her <HI>Arian</HI> Presbyter; it &s;eems that the Clergy of <HI>Alexandria</HI><NOTE N="&Verbar;" PLACE="marg">Athana&s;. de S<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">n d. p <HI>890.</HI></NOTE> were all aware of the dangerous con&s;equence of receiving him upon that Creed: And &s;o was<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Soz. &s;upra. c. <HI>28.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Alexander</HI> their Bi&s;hop; he being afterwards, at <HI>Con&s;tantinople,</HI> when <HI>Arius</HI> came hither, on the &s;ame Arrant; they &s;uppo&s;ing the <HI>Nicene</HI> Deci&s;ion to be directly over thrown by it, becau&s;e <GAP DESC="foreign"> was left out. And <HI>Athana&s;ius</HI> had not much better thoughts of it; but &s;ays, that the Synod<NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg">Ibid. de Sy|nodis, p. <HI>841.</HI></NOTE> approv'd and prai&s;ed <GAP DESC="foreign">, all <HI>Arius</HI>'s naughty &s;entiments: And that no le&s;s was de&s;ign'd, by the <HI>Eu&s;ebians,</HI> in laying their plot for their after proceedings again&s;t him&s;elf, and the other Bi&s;hops, then the re&s;toring <HI>Arius</HI> Per&s;on, and introducing his Here&s;y: But his wonde<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ful death in a Jakes, immediately following, put a &s;top to it for a time, and <GAP DESC="foreign">, (as <HI>Sozomen</HI><NOTE N="&Verbar;" PLACE="marg">Ibid. &s;upra. c. <HI>28.</HI></NOTE> ob&s;erves) God him&s;elf excommunicated him from the Communion of the Faith|ful. But notwith&s;tanding all this,<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Supra de Synodis.</NOTE> <HI>Athana&s;ius</HI> there confe&s;&s;es
<PB N="103" REF="66"> that <HI>Arius</HI>'s Party did declare only their good will; <GAP DESC="foreign">, and did not appear above board: though their plot was thorowly &s;een into by thinking men: And them&s;elves were &s;en&s;ible of it: And, it being not then ripe, nor for their ad|vantage openly to appear, and directly &s;tate their ca&s;e, and produce their proofs, in order to a palliation, and the better recommending them&s;elves, they procure a new Synod at <HI>Antioch,</HI> in which <GAP DESC="foreign">, they make &s;everal alterations, and here begins that trade which they manag'd by &s;teps: And at length obtain'd their end: As I am to give an account.</P>
<P>The plain truth is; of which I will here again give an ac|count, in part, tho' I have done it but a leaf or two before; as <HI>Arius</HI>'s &s;ub&s;cription did no wayes come from his heart, but was altogether forc'd, and hypocritical: Perhaps no man that pretended to integrity acted &s;uch a part before, or &s;ince, as he did, when he made it; according to the account which<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">H. E. l. <HI>1.</HI> c. <HI>25.</HI></NOTE> <HI>So|crates</HI> gives of it, which is this: <HI>That he wrote his H<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">retical The&s;is in a Paper, and holding it under his <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters">m at the time he &s;ub&s;crib'd, he &s;wore he did truly, and without any re&s;erve, think as he had written:</HI> meaning, in his paper, which he had then under his arm; &s;o he took no other ca<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">e in his Creed, but to regain and fix him&s;elf in <HI>Con&s;tantine</HI>'s favour; and have better opportunity, under his protection, to eject <HI>Athana&s;ius,</HI> and &s;ome other Catho|lick Bi&s;hops, and place the mo&s;t confiding of his own faction in the chief Government of the Church, as the mo&s;t expeditious, and effectual cour&s;e (they could not hope to do it by other means) to retrieve and e&s;tabli&s;h his <HI>Ariani&s;m,</HI> and make them|&s;elves heads of the Succe&s;&s;ion; agreeably to the p<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ot which was laid by<NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg"><HI>Ibid. c.</HI> 10. 18.</NOTE> <HI>Eu&s;ebius</HI> of <HI>Nicomedia</HI> and <HI>Theognis,</HI> immediatly upon their return from Bani&s;hment: the accompli&s;hment of which <HI>Arius</HI> did not live to &s;ee,<NOTE N="&Verbar;" PLACE="marg">Ibid. c. <HI>25.</HI></NOTE> he being prevented by a miraculous death; But <HI>Eu&s;ebius, Theognis, Maris, Valens, Ur&s;acius,</HI> with others of that black combination, brought it to pa&s;s in &s;ome mea&s;ure, in the latter end of <HI>Con&s;tantius</HI>'s Reign. To &s;peak all in one word: The main thing above board, on the <HI>Eu&s;ebians</HI> &s;ide, was to remove the foremention'd Prelates: Their own beloved <HI>Ariani&s;m</HI> was not it: And the Catholicks, on the other &s;ide, contended, with no le&s;s indu&s;try and zeal, but with b<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">tter Arguments, and more integrity, to keep them in, who all along, remon&s;trated to their Deprivations, as imcompetent un|canonical, unju&s;t, and invalid, and openly declar'd that they
<PB N="104" REF="67"> ought to maintain and adhere to their lawful Bi&s;hops and lawful Succe&s;&s;ion, and oppo&s;e two Bi&s;hops in one Di&s;trict, upon the &s;ame ground that they &s;tand engag'd to maintain and adhere to <HI>the Faith which was once delivered to the Saints.</HI> The <HI>Eu&s;ebians,</HI> al&s;o, maintain'd their own p&s;uedo-Bi&s;hops with the like vigor, and con&s;tancy, and for the &s;ame rea&s;ons. I will only add, that their contrefeit &s;ub&s;cription to the Catholick Truth, de&s;igning thereby to root it out, puts me in mind of the advice I have heard a great man of our Natiom, gave to Mr. <HI>Cotton</HI> of <HI>Bo&s;ton,</HI> when he came to him, and made complaint that his con&s;cience would not give him leave to comply with the Church's Laws; and its per&s;ecutions would, other waies, be &s;o great that he could not endure them; whereupon he had re&s;olv'd to go into <HI>New England:</HI> Which advice was this: <HI>Pi&s;h, you are a fool; &s;tay and be a Dean or a Bi&s;hop, and thus you will have better oppor|tunity, and more effectually ruine its Hierarchy:</HI> And I do heartily wi&s;h that the Church of God had had fewer &s;uch fal&s;e friends of old, e&s;pecially in the days of <HI>Con&s;tantius;</HI> and &s;ince in our Church of <HI>England:</HI> Even, at pre&s;ent, that too many of the &s;ame com|plexion, were not lodg'd in her bowels.</P>
<P>But I cannot omit taking notice, how<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">S<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">pra de vlt. Con&s;tant. l. <HI>4.</HI> c. <HI>43.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Eu&s;ebius</HI> makes the Church of <HI>Egypt</HI> to appear, by its Bi&s;hops, in the foremention'd Synod of <HI>Jeru&s;alem,</HI> and concur with it in <HI>Arius</HI>'s reception: Whereas that Councils <HI>Synodical Epi&s;tle</HI> (as it is in<NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg">Supra de Sy|nodi&s;.</NOTE> <HI>Athana&s;ius</HI>) to <HI>Alexandria, Egypt, Thebais, Libia,</HI> and the re&s;t of that Dioce&s;s, &s;olicits the <HI>Egyptian</HI> Churches to a complyance with its Deter|minations, and receive <HI>Arius,</HI> which is a full evidence that they were not at the Council. Be&s;ides, <HI>Sozomen</HI> &s;ays expre&s;sly, that the <HI>Alexandrian</HI> Church, together with the <HI>Con&s;tantinopolitan,</HI> did actually deny to receive him, as I have ju&s;t now ob&s;erv'd: And<NOTE N="&Verbar;" PLACE="marg"><HI>Ar.</HI> 335. <HI>num.</HI> 42.</NOTE> <HI>Baronius</HI> (though he does not in&s;i&s;t on it, as his evidence) may not have ob&s;erv'd ami&s;s, when he remarques, that <HI>Eu&s;ebius</HI> hath given a wrong account of the Bi&s;hops in the <HI>Jero&s;olymitan</HI> Synod, and o&s;tentatiou&s;lly made their number greater then it was, thereby to gain a reputation to it, and render <HI>Arius</HI>'s re|ception more unanimous and authorative. For, though <HI>Eu&s;ebius</HI> was a good man, and &s;ub&s;crib'd con&s;cientiou&s;ly to the <HI>Nicene</HI> Faith, and its particular explication, in obedience to the Church of God; yet, as we mu&s;t allow that he was &s;o much an <HI>Arian,</HI> as to think, that the word <HI>Con&s;ub&s;tantial</HI> had been better left out: And to have de&s;ir'd the Church's compliance, and to repre&s;ent
<PB N="105" REF="67"> it as authorative as he could; and <HI>Arius</HI>'s reception, without that word; &s;o it cannot be denied, but that it le&s;&s;ens his reputa|tion, as an Hi&s;torian, by his mi&s;taking the account: And we may have &s;ome rea&s;on to doubt whether he may not have been mi|&s;taken, as to &s;ome other Churches, which he avers to have been in the Synod; and to believe, that the Synod might con&s;i&s;t of fewer Bi&s;hops, to a greater quantity, and be le&s;s authorative, then he would have us believe it had. Though our <HI>Annali&s;t</HI> &s;ays, that the greate&s;t part of the Bi&s;hops, who were at the Synod, were for the <HI>Hom&Taurus;&s;ian</HI> explication, but the <HI>Eu&s;ebians</HI> met after the Synod broke up, and determin'd for their own advantage; and the Synod hath been, for that rea&s;on, e&s;teem'd a convention, and not a legitimate Council.</P>
<P>Again when the ca&s;e of <HI>Eu&s;tathius,</HI> Bi&s;hop of <HI>Antioch,</HI> was a little after conte&s;ted, in a Council held in that City; where he was ab|dicated and bani&s;h'd by the <HI>Eu&s;ebians,</HI> and the Empire, (whether it was done in <HI>Con&s;tantine</HI>'s or <HI>Constantius</HI>'s days, is not material at pre&s;ent) the crimes which were objected, and pretendedly prov'd again&s;t him, were, 1. <HI>Sabelliani&s;m.</HI> 2. Incontinency. 3. Tyranny: And though he was a zealous contender for the <HI>Nicene</HI> Faith, and the <HI>Homo&Taurus;&s;ian</HI> explication of it, not inferior to <HI>Athana&s;ius,</HI><NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Athana&s;. ad. Solitar. p. <HI>812.</HI> Socrat. l. <HI>1.</HI> c. <HI>18.</HI> Theod. l. <HI>1.</HI> c. <HI>21.</HI> Soz. l. <HI>2.</HI> c. <HI>17, 18.</HI></NOTE> that was not laid to his charge: But on the contrary, they proceeded again&s;t him as a perverter of it, by his <HI>Sabelliaui&s;m:</HI> And when <HI>Eu&s;tathius</HI> accus'd <HI>Eu&s;ebius Panphilius</HI> (betwixt which two the di&s;pute was managed) becau&s;e of his violation of the <HI>Homo&Taurus;&s;ian</HI> Article, <HI>Eu&s;ebius</HI> return'd the accu&s;ation upon him, and they mu|tually purg'd them&s;elves: And &s;ince a Party in <HI>Antioch</HI> adher'd to <HI>Eustathius,</HI> notwith&s;tanding his pretended depo&s;ition, which, for that rea&s;on, were call'd <HI>Eu&s;tathians,</HI> and refus'd to communi|cate with tho&s;e <HI>Succe&s;&s;ors</HI> whom the <HI>Eu&s;ebians</HI> appointed; &s;hall we think that they refus'd, becau&s;e they were <HI>Arians,</HI> when <HI>Ariani&s;m</HI> was di&s;own'd by tho&s;e <HI>Eu&s;ebians,</HI> at that time: And they were as &s;hy in communicating with them, as the <HI>Eu&s;tathians</HI> were:<NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg">In vita Con&s;t. l <HI>3.</HI> c. <HI>60.</HI></NOTE> E&s;pecially, &s;ince <HI>Con&s;tantine</HI> gives this character of <HI>Sophronius,</HI> a Presbyter of <HI>Ce&s;area,</HI> and <HI>Georgius,</HI> another of <HI>Arethu&s;a,</HI> as,<NOTE N="&Verbar;" PLACE="marg">H. E. l. <HI>1.</HI> c. <HI>22.</HI></NOTE> <GAP DESC="foreign">, of an approv'd Faith; and he then recom|mended them for the Bi&s;hoprick of <HI>Antioch,</HI> upon <HI>Eu&s;<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">bius</HI>'s re|fu&s;al of it; and the fo<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">mer was actually con&s;tituted Bi&s;hop there. And though the&s;e <HI>Succe&s;&s;ors</HI> were a&s;<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters">r&s;ed, by common &s;ame, <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="3 letters">h the character of <HI>Arians,</HI> as<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">L. <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 span"></NOTE> <HI>Theodor<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">t</HI> tells us; and <HI>Athana&s;ius</HI> <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 word"> him intimates <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">s much; yet &s;ince they then acted and
<PB N="106" REF="68"> approv'd them&s;elves otherwi&s;e, that could not be given by the <HI>Eu&s;tathians</HI> as the rea&s;on why they &s;eparated from them: nor did the Catholicks &s;o &s;trictly in&s;i&s;t upon the word <GAP DESC="foreign">, un|le&s;s it vi&s;ibly appear'd, that the Faith was &s;truck at, by its omi&s;|&s;ion: So, this alone &s;eems to be the rea&s;on why the Catholicks did not communicate with them; <HI>viz.</HI> becau&s;e <HI>Eu&s;tathius</HI> had been unju&s;tly remov'd, and they were not Succe&s;&s;ors according to the rules which the Church requires; but <HI>Seconds,</HI> in a full See. And <HI>Theodorit,</HI> in the above mention'd Chapter, &s;ays little le&s;s: Where he tells us, <GAP DESC="foreign">, many that cho&s;e to &s;erve God in the right way, and according to his own Rules of wor&s;hip, both of the Clergy and Laity, le&s;t the Eccle&s;ia&s;tical Conventions, and congregated among them&s;elves; who therefore were call'd <HI>Eustathians:</HI> For we know the <HI>Eu&s;ebians</HI> omitting the word <GAP DESC="foreign">, but retaining the Eternal Generation, did not make any change in the Wor&s;hip, or publick Service; and the <HI>Eu&s;tathians</HI> and <HI>Eu&s;ebians</HI> might at this time of day, have a&s;&s;em|bled together, without any di&s;advantage to one another, upon that account.</P>
<P>I am very apt to think, that <HI>Eu&s;ebius Pamphilus</HI> might refu&s;e the Bi&s;hoprick of <HI>Antioch</HI> upon the account of the Schi&s;m; when, upon <HI>Eu&s;tathius</HI>'s Depo&s;ition, it was offer'd him by the Bi&s;hops and <HI>Constantine:</HI> And perhaps, the manner of <HI>Eu&s;tathius</HI>'s re|moval was wor&s;e than it is repre&s;ented, in our Hi&s;torians &s;hort account of it; and the &s;ecular Force contributed too much to it, as it did to <HI>Athana&s;ius</HI>'s removal, in the Council of <HI>Tyre;</HI> and this might, in part, keep <HI>Eu&s;ebius</HI> out of it; for he was, certainly, a good man, as to the main: But the mo&s;t likely rea&s;on of his refu&s;ing it was, becau&s;e his receiving it, would not have compor|ted with the Church principle of <HI>one Bi&s;hop in one See;</HI> nor with the Ancients Judgment, upon <HI>Novatianus</HI>'s a&s;&s;uming <HI>Cornelius</HI>'s Chair, and violating that principle; of which we have an ac|count from him&s;elf in his <HI>Church Hi&s;tory.</HI> Be&s;ides; the<NOTE N="&Verbar;" PLACE="marg">Soz. l. <HI>2.</HI> c. <HI>18.</HI> Eu&s;eb. de vita Con&s;tantini lib. <HI>3.</HI> c. <HI>58, 59.</HI></NOTE> rea&s;on for which he is &s;aid to have refu&s;ed it &s;eems too &s;lender; as, becau&s;e the <HI>Canon forbids a Bi&s;hop to remove from one Bi&s;hoprick to another:</HI> For that Prohibition was only accidental and temporal: Neither did the Church ever think her &s;elf indi&s;pen&s;ably oblig'd to its Ob&s;ervation.<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>L.</HI> 5. <HI>c.</HI> 35.</NOTE> <HI>Socrates</HI> gives us an account, how &s;everal Bi|&s;hops have been tran&s;lated: And he receives one of them from<NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg"><HI>L.</HI> 6. <HI>c.</HI> 9.</NOTE> <HI>Eu&s;ebius;</HI> and the thing is approv'd by him. And the &s;ame opi|nion concerning the nullity of tho&s;e Canons, which once pro|vided,
<PB N="107" REF="68"> that a Bi&s;hop &s;hould not be tran&s;lated from one See to ano|ther, continued in the Church till the days of <HI>Gregory Nazianzen;</HI> who calls them <HI>dead</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg"><GAP DESC="foreign">. * Carmin de vita &s;<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters"> Ed. Pari&s;. num. <HI>155.</HI> Vide Schol. G. Billii in Locum.</NOTE> <HI>Laws,</HI> which expired long &s;ince, and then, laid no re&s;traint upon him; when the Junior, <HI>Latitude</HI> Bi&s;hops, who had been <HI>Arians,</HI> and Catho+licks, as the Empire protected them, objected them again&s;t him, in the &s;econd General Council at <HI>Con|&s;tantinople;</HI> as having been Bi&s;hop of <HI>Sa&s;imos</HI> and <HI>Na|zianzum;</HI> and their exce&s;s of envy and malice could not direct to any other plea, upon which they might, with any &s;hew of ju&s;tice, remove him from his Bi&s;hoprick of <HI>Con&s;tantinople,</HI> as they had remov'd <HI>Paulinus</HI> from <HI>Antioch</HI> before, bringing, by clamors and noy&s;e, only, <HI>Flavianus</HI> into his Chair, when <HI>Pau|linus</HI> was the legal Bi&s;hop there, by the Church Laws and &s;ettle|ment; for which St. <HI>Gregory</HI> &s;everely cha&s;ti&s;es them, a little be|fore, in the &s;ame Poem; and it, po&s;&s;ibly, might occa&s;ion, in &s;ome mea&s;ure their pre&s;ent proceeding again&s;t him: But of this I have given &s;ome account already.</P>
<P><HI>Athana&s;ius</HI> is the next man, upon whom the <HI>Eu&s;ebians</HI> make their effort, with a de&s;ign to fling him out of his Church at <HI>Alexandria,</HI> as they had done <HI>Eu&s;tathius</HI> out of his Church at <HI>Antioch:</HI> And they were in&s;tigated to it, partly out of revenge, becau&s;e he refu&s;ed to receive <HI>Arius,</HI> as a Presbyter of the Church of <HI>Alexandria,</HI> being not well plea&s;ed with the Creed which he and <HI>Euzoius</HI> offer'd, tho' it did not oppo&s;e that of <HI>Nicea,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Socrat. l. <HI>1.</HI> c. <HI>20.</HI></NOTE> but only came &s;hort of it in &s;ome expre&s;&s;ions: Of which I have ju&s;t now given &s;ome account: But chiefly becau&s;e he knew his re|ception would be a leading and effectual &s;tep for the re&s;toring their e&s;pou&s;ed <HI>Ariani&s;m,</HI> which they then retain'd with their old affections, tho' they outwardly renounc'd, and openly pro|te&s;ted again&s;t it. And, in order to this, they prevail'd with <HI>Con|&s;tantine,</HI> upon their &s;ugge&s;tions again&s;t <HI>Athana&s;ius,</HI> as a notorious Criminal; and a Synod was call'd at <HI>Tyre;</HI> in which, by the corrupt dealings of the &s;ecular Officers, (of which I have already given &s;ome account) he was remov'd from his See, and the Emperor bani&s;h'd him upon it: But the Allegations which they made, and proceeded on, again&s;t him, were, for cutting off <HI>Ar&s;enius</HI>'s hand, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> No matter of Faith was &s;tarted,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Vid. pag <HI>66.</HI></NOTE> much le&s;s canva&s;&s;ed and determined, nor accu&s;ation brought again&s;t him by rea&s;on of it: But the Faith then remain'd as before in the Council of <HI>Nicea,</HI> and the <HI>Eu&s;ebians</HI> embraced it in &s;hew, and
<PB N="108" REF="69"> this may ea&s;ily be conceiv'd: for tho' <HI>Con&s;tantine</HI> was, at that time, too much influenced by his Si&s;ter <HI>Con&s;tantia,</HI> and her <HI>Arian</HI> Prie&s;t; yet, his complexion was too well known, to be &s;uppos'd, as inclin'd to de&s;ert the <HI>Nicene</HI> Faith, and a&s;&s;ert the Son a Crea|ture, which the <HI>Eu&s;ebians</HI> kn<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">w very well; and their craft di|rected them to acco&s;t <HI>Athana&s;ius</HI> another way. And tho' <HI>Con|&s;tantine</HI> did bani&s;h <HI>Athana&s;ius</HI>'s Per&s;on, the Faction, as to that, pre|vailing too much upon him; he was, notwith&s;tanding, &s;en&s;ible of his innocency, as to what he was accu&s;ed of: And his Son <HI>Con&s;tantine</HI> has told us,<NOTE PLACE="marg"><GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">rat. l. <HI>2.</HI> c. <HI>2.</HI></NOTE> that he did it as a means for his e&s;cape from the fury of his Per&s;ecutors.</P>
<P>Upon <HI>Con&s;tantine</HI>'s death, <HI>Constantius</HI> his Son, was po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ed of the <HI>Ea&s;tern</HI> Government: And, what through his own inclination, and the incitation of his Eunuchs, Courtiers, and <HI>Eu&s;ebians; Ariani&s;m</HI> began to lift up its head, within that circuit: But the <HI>We&s;tern</HI> Empire continued re&s;olute and inflexible for the <HI>Nicene</HI> Faith, which gave a curb to its growth:<NOTE PLACE="marg">Socrat. ibid. &s;up.</NOTE> And <HI>Con&s;tantius</HI> was over-rul'd by the Letters which he receiv'd of his Brother <HI>Con&s;tantine,</HI> &s;o that he gave leave that <HI>Athana&s;ius</HI> might come home: Upon which the <HI>Eu&s;ebians</HI> were much di&s;compos'd; but e&s;pecially becau&s;e he was receiv'd with a general welcome by all, not only at <HI>Alexandria,</HI> but in his way thither, except by them&s;elves: and they did not permit him to enjoy the advantage of it long; but, &s;oon after, obtain'd of <HI>Constantius</HI> that another Council was call'd at <HI>Antioch,</HI> the majority of which was of their own Fa|ction: And having rallied up all the accu&s;ations they had laid to his charge at <HI>Tyre,</HI> and added &s;ome new ones, as <HI>That he re|a&s;&s;um'd his Mini&s;try at</HI> Alexandria, <HI>when the Synod, by which he was abdicated,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Soz. l. <HI>3.</HI> c. <HI>5.</HI></NOTE> <HI>had not re&s;tor'd him, that he occa&s;ion'd commotions and tumults in the City;</HI> they confirm'd his <HI>Tyrian</HI> depo&s;ition, and placed <HI>Gregorius</HI> in his Chair: But tho' they made four Creeds in this Council, or immediatly upon it; (for &s;ome think the two latter Creeds were made by the &s;ame Bi&s;hops, but not in the &s;ame Synod) and tho' we have good rea&s;on to believe, that they conven'd on purpo&s;e to overthrow the <HI>Nicene</HI> Faith: (&s;o our Hi&s;torians, and &s;o the event, &s;peaks it) Yet they there open|ly<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>l.</HI> 2. <HI>c.</HI> 7. <GAP DESC="foreign">, &amp;c.</NOTE> prote&s;t, that they neither follow <HI>Arius,</HI> nor receive any other Faith be&s;ides that which was deliver'd from the beginning: And concludes the &s;econd and fourth Creeds with this Declaration.<NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg">Socr. &amp; Soz. ibid. &s;upra. Athan. de Synod. Arim. &amp; Se|leuc. p. <HI>893. 900.</HI> Hilar. de Synod P. <HI>227.</HI> Ed. Ba&s;il.</NOTE> <HI>Let tho&s;e be accur&s;ed that &s;ay, the Son was made of a non-ens, or of nothing; or of another &s;ub&s;istance, and not of God:
<PB N="109" REF="69"> Or, that a time was, when the Son was not: Or a time, Or an age, before which he was born:</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg"><GAP DESC="foreign">.</NOTE> And though the four Creeds differ from one another in &s;ome things: The lowe&s;t of them is con&s;i&s;tent with the <HI>Nicene</HI> Faith, and fully a&s;&s;erts the Eter|nal Generation: But the &s;econd comes up to it in every thing; &s;ave that the word <HI>Con&s;ubstantial</HI> is omitted: It was &s;ub&s;crib'd by all the <HI>Eu&s;ebians,</HI> even by <HI>Acacius</HI> and his Complices, as we read in<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Ibid p. <HI>91.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Athana&s;ius;</HI> and by <HI>Gregory,</HI> though he was then but Bi|&s;hop elect<NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg">Soz. Ibid.</NOTE> of <HI>Alexandria,</HI> in their own ordering and account. It's here to be ob&s;erv'd; that when <HI>Julius</HI> call'd a Synod at <HI>Rome,</HI> immediately upon this Synod at <HI>Antioch,</HI> which remov'd <HI>Athana|&s;ius,</HI> and there, <HI>i. e.</HI> in that Synod of <HI>Rome,</HI> re&s;tor'd him; that which <HI>Julius</HI> blames the <HI>Eu&s;ebians</HI> for, is not their Creeds; but their <HI>unju&s;t</HI> and <HI>uncanonical</HI> ejectment of <HI>Athana&s;ius,</HI> and &s;ettle|ment of <HI>Gregorius</HI> in his See: and for removing, by the &s;ame in|ju&s;tice, the other Catholick Bi&s;hops that adher'd to him: As it may be &s;een at large, in <HI>Julius</HI>'s Epi&s;tle upon that occa&s;ion, re|corded by<NOTE N="&Verbar;" PLACE="marg">Apolog. p. <HI>739.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Athana&s;ius;</HI> and mention'd by<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>L.</HI> 2. <HI>c.</HI> 13.</NOTE> <HI>Socrates</HI> and<NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg"><HI>L.</HI> 2. <HI>c.</HI> 10.</NOTE> <HI>So|zomen,</HI> in their Church Hi&s;tories:<NOTE N="&Verbar;" PLACE="marg">Apolog. p. <HI>907.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Athana&s;ius</HI> has well taken notice, upon the occa&s;ion of the&s;e &s;everal Creeds, and their va|riations; that they made them on purpo&s;e, to have thereby an opportunity to &s;erve their ambition; and by their loquacity, to draw away the &s;imply ignorant; and conceal that Here&s;y which, in truth, they nouri&s;hed: So far were they at that time, from openly profe&s;&s;ing them&s;elves <HI>Arian</HI> Hereticks.</P>
<P>Three years after this, the <HI>Orientals</HI> call'd another Synod at <HI>Antioch,</HI> and there pre&s;ented a Creed to the <HI>Occidentals</HI> call'd <GAP DESC="foreign">, by rea&s;on of its great length: where they d<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">nounce the &s;ame <HI>Anathema</HI> the precedeing Council did, again&s;t tho&s;e that &s;aid, <HI>That the Son was made of nothing, or of another &s;ub&s;tance, and not of God. Or that a time or a &s;<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">cu<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">um was, in w<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters">ch he was not.</HI> And &s;uper added the&s;e following expo&s;itions: <HI>As not|with&s;tanding the Son is &s;ubjected to the Fath<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">r and to God,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg"><P><GAP DESC="foreign">.</P>
<P><GAP DESC="foreign">.</P></NOTE> <HI>we know him to be born of God according to nature, and Coeternal with God, the perfect and true God.</HI> And again <HI><GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">or we know him to be not &s;imply the Interpreter of the mind and thoughts of God,</HI> or <HI>the outward <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters">a|nation of them,</HI> or <HI>the inward Word and Con|ception
<PB N="110" REF="70"> of his Mind, but the Word and Living God, exi&s;ting in it &s;elf, and the Son of God,</HI> and Chri&s;t; <HI>and not exi&s;ting with him in his foreknowledg, and conver&s;ing with his Father before all Ages, and administring to the whole Creation, but the true inexisting &s;ub&s;tantial word of the Father,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg"><GAP DESC="foreign"></NOTE> <HI>and God of God.</HI> And farther; <HI>We believe him to be like the Father in all things.</HI> Which explications are a full indication they did believe aright in the Eternal Genera|tion: And the <HI>Occidentals</HI> had no other objection again&s;t them, but their omitting the word <GAP DESC="foreign">, an account of which we have in<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>L.</HI> 2. <HI>c.</HI> 15.</NOTE> <HI>Socrates</HI> and<NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg"><HI>L.</HI> 3. <HI>c.</HI> 10.</NOTE> <HI>Sozomen.</HI></P>
<P>The <HI>Sardican</HI> Council comes next: which was conveen'd chiefly for the &s;ake of <HI>Athana&s;ius,</HI> and his abdicated Brethren, whom it re&s;tor'd: And it al&s;o ejected their Intruders: But the <HI>Eu&s;ebians</HI> very politickly, ab&s;ented them&s;elves, being aware that the Catholicks were the far greater number: And that they could not have the a&s;&s;i&s;tance of the &s;ecular Arm, which they had enjoy'd in other Synods: As the account is given us in the <HI>Synodical Epi&s;tle</HI> which the Council wrote, <HI>Omnibus ubique Epi&s;|copis,</HI> &amp;c. And may be &s;een in<NOTE N="&Verbar;" PLACE="marg"><HI>Apol.</HI> 2. <HI>p.</HI> 757.</NOTE> <HI>Athana&s;ius,</HI><NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>l.</HI> 2. <HI>c.</HI> 16.</NOTE> <HI>Socrates,</HI><NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg"><HI>l.</HI> 2. <HI>c.</HI> 10.</NOTE> <HI>So|zomen</HI> and<NOTE N="&Verbar;" PLACE="marg"><HI>l.</HI> 2. <HI>c.</HI> 7, 8.</NOTE> <HI>Theodorit:</HI><NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Ibid.</NOTE> <HI>Theodorit</HI> &s;ays that they made new ex|po&s;itions of Faith in this <HI>Sardican</HI> Synod, and<NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg"><HI>l.</HI> 3. <HI>c.</HI> 11.</NOTE> <HI>Sozomen</HI> men|tions the &s;ame. But it is plain from <HI>Athana&s;ius,</HI> that tho&s;e new Creeds they &s;peak of were forgeries, and<NOTE N="&Verbar;" PLACE="marg">Ep. ad Antio|chen&s;es. p. <HI>576.</HI></NOTE> he forbids the <HI>Antiochians</HI> to read them: and adds, that the Synod made a Law, which commands, that no one tittle &s;hall be added to the <HI>Nicene</HI> ones: But the Law is not now extant: And all that tho&s;e Fathers did there was to confirm the Sanctions at <HI>Nicea:</HI> As we know the &s;econd General Council did afterwards; neither has it been, &s;ince, unu&s;ual for a &s;ucceeding Council to give its Authority to a precedeing one: Even when no defect, was &s;up|po&s;ed to be in it.</P>
<P>But, though the <HI>Eu&s;ebians</HI> kept them&s;elves wholly off from the true Synod of <HI>Sardica,</HI> they did not lye &s;till; much le&s;s ac|quie&s;ce in its Determinations and Orders: But they call'd ano|ther at <HI>Philippolis</HI> in the <HI>East,</HI> in oppo&s;ition to it; which, u&s;ually, goes by the name of the <HI>P&s;eudo-Sardican Synod:</HI> And here they made a new Creed; But they, at the &s;ame time, declared again&s;t <HI>Ariani&s;m;</HI> they indu&s;triou&s;ly, all along, repre&s;ented them&s;elves to be abhorrers of it; e&s;pou&s;ing the &s;ame Faith which was re|ceiv'd at <HI>Nicea.</HI> And the Creed which they here made is ap|prov'd by St.<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">L. de Synodis.</NOTE> <HI>Hilary,</HI> as agreeing with the <HI>Nicene</HI> &s;en&s;e, only
<PB N="111" REF="70"> the word <HI>Homo&Taurus;&s;ios</HI> is not in it:<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">L. 3. <HI>c.</HI> 10.</NOTE> <HI>Sozomen</HI> gives us an account of it: As <HI>that they made no mention of the E&s;&s;ence of God</HI> in the Synod,<NOTE PLACE="marg"><GAP DESC="foreign">.</NOTE> <HI>but they anathematized all tho&s;e who a&s;&s;ert that the Son was made of nothing, or of an E&s;&s;ence which was diver&s;e from God the Father's E&s;&s;ence; or that there was a time, or age, in which the Son was not.</HI></P>
<P><NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">L. 3. <HI>c.</HI> 10.</NOTE><HI>Sozomen</HI> al&s;o further &s;ays, that they condemn'd more fal&s;e Opinions concerning the Incarnation, among which this is one: <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>that the Son is not be|gotten:</HI> But <HI>Homoou&s;iani&s;m</HI> is not pretended to have been one: So we may &s;afely &s;ay, that<NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg">L. 2. <HI>c.</HI> 16.</NOTE> <HI>Socrates</HI> is very much mi&s;taken when he tells us, that the&s;e <HI>Orientals</HI> at <HI>Philippi anathematized</HI> the word <GAP DESC="foreign">: For there was not any direct and open oppo&s;ition made to the word <HI>Con&s;ub&s;tantialis</HI> at that time, by this Synod, or by any other: At lea&s;t, &s;o as to erect a Sect upon it: But all that was done, was by omitting the word; though the di&s;cerning <HI>Athana&s;ians</HI> were not then in&s;en&s;ible of their further de&s;ign in its omi&s;&s;ion; but lookt upon it, as a direct &s;tep to the introducing what they afterwards effected, to the abolition of the word and thing; as<NOTE N="&Verbar;" PLACE="marg">Ibid. Here&s;. <HI>73.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Epiphanius</HI> has taken notice: tho' he gives there a confu&s;ed account of the progre&s;s of their mi&s;takes, and &s;eems to make the <HI>Semi-Arians,</HI> who cen&s;ur'd the word <HI>Con&s;ubstantial,</HI> the &s;ame with tho&s;e that omitted it only, as Un&s;criptural; and and yet, he afterwards di&s;tingui&s;hes them, and gives a plain ac|count of their different Opinions: And yet &s;ome Editions have made <HI>Socrates</HI> guilty of another great mi&s;take in this Chapter, which are follow'd in <HI>Christofor&s;ons</HI> Tran&s;lation, where he is repre&s;ented to &s;ay, that the&s;e <HI>Sardican</HI> Bi&s;hops not only anathe|matized the word <HI>Homo&Taurus;&s;ios,</HI> but publi&s;h'd every where the <HI>Anomean</HI> Doctrine, and a&s;&s;erted the Son not to be like the Fa|ther, but to be of another Sub&s;tance; whereas that Doctrine had not been receiv'd, neither had <HI>Aetius,</HI> who was its Author, then appear'd: And &s;o far as I can find by<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Animadver&s;. in Epiphan. he|r<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">&s; <HI>73.</HI> num. <HI>2.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Petavius;</HI> all the preceding <HI>Greek</HI> and <HI>Latine</HI> Editions give the &s;ame account o<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> him; until the <HI>Colen</HI> Edition; which in &s;tead of <GAP DESC="foreign">; read <GAP DESC="foreign">, but <HI>Chri&s;tofor&s;on,</HI> neverthele&s;s,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Opinionem quod F<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">lius Patri di&s;&s;imilis e&s;&s;et per literas Scri|ptas ubique di&s;|&s;eminare cae<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters">|runt.</NOTE> keeps to the old Tran&s;lation: when, not <GAP DESC="foreign">, but, <GAP DESC="foreign"> is printed in the Column over again&s;t it. And agreeably to the account which <HI>Sozomen</HI> gives of the&s;e Bi&s;hops here; as it is above related out of him, upon the &s;ucce&s;s of the <HI>Sardican</HI> Council, which the two Emperors, <HI>Con&s;tantius</HI> and <HI>Con&s;tans,</HI> abetted, all the World
<PB N="112" REF="71"> &s;o far comply'd, as to receive and profe&s;s, the <HI>Eternal Genera|tion,</HI> and <HI>one Sub&s;tance:</HI> Though many cared not to meddle with the word <HI>Con&s;ubstantial.</HI> St.<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Lib. contra C<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">n|&s;tantium.</NOTE> <HI>Hilary</HI> thus upbraids <HI>Con&s;tan|tius</HI> when he turn'd Apo&s;tate. <HI>Thou damne&s;t</HI> (&s;ays he) <HI>al&s;o the word &s;ub&s;tance by which thou di&s;&s;embledst thy &s;elf to be pious,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Damnas quoque &amp; Sub&s;tantiae nomen, quo te, &amp; Sardi<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">en&s;i Synodo, &amp; Sir|mien&s;i pium e&s;&s;e occidentalibus mentie|baris.</NOTE> <HI>both in the</HI> Sardican <HI>Synod, and in the</HI> Sirmina. And farther: <HI>Thou commandest them to condemn every thing which hath been approv'd of before.</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Omne quod probatum est antea, dam|nare jubes, quod improbatum &s;emper e&s;t, &s;anctificari compellis. Tu Sacer|dotes Chri&s;ti re&s;orbere ea, quae expuerant oegi&s;ti.</NOTE> <HI>And com|pelle&s;t that which hath always been rejected to be &s;anctified, thou hast forced the Priests of Chri&s;t to &s;up up again tho&s;e thing, which they &s;pew'd out. Theodorit</HI><NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>l.</HI> 3. <HI>c.</HI> 3.</NOTE> gives the account with <HI>Hilary</HI> in part, in his Eccle|&s;ia&s;tical Hi&s;tory: As, that <HI>Con&s;tantius</HI> was prejudic'd again&s;t the word <GAP DESC="foreign">, but believ'd the thing it &s;elf; and order'd tho&s;e Prie&s;ts to be depo&s;ed, who a&s;&s;erted the Son to be a Creature: And <HI>Sozomen</HI> gives the like account; and with all gives the rea&s;ons, why that Emperor cho&s;e the word <GAP DESC="foreign"> in|&s;teed of <GAP DESC="foreign">: Which rea&s;ons though &s;ugge&s;ted to him by great men, are as &s;lender as his adver&s;aries can wi&s;h: Yet they &s;erv'd his turn &s;o far, as to take him off from the Catho|lick explication, and &s;ix him on the other; but he retain'd, notwith&s;tanding, the thing it &s;elf: And, as his Brother <HI>Con|&s;tans,</HI> &s;o, he was of the &s;ame Faith which <HI>Con&s;tantine</HI> their Fa|ther profe&s;s'd and maintain'd: Our<NOTE PLACE="marg">Ibid. <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">. <HI>12.</HI></NOTE> Hi&s;torian gives it as his Opinion, that the differences which aro&s;e in the <HI>Ea&s;t,</HI> after the Council of <HI>Sardica,</HI> were about the&s;e foremention'd words; and that they agreed in the Sub&s;tance with <HI>Paulus, Athana&s;ius,</HI> and the re&s;t of them. Agreeably hereunto S.<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>L.</HI> de Synod. Arim. &amp; S<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">leac.</NOTE> <HI>Athana&s;ius</HI> &s;ays; that the <HI>Eu&s;ebians</HI> ca&s;t out the Doctrine of one <HI>Sub&s;tance,</HI> in the Synod of <HI>Seleucia,</HI> contrary to their own profe&s;&s;ion, in the Synod of <HI>Antioch,</HI> held at the Fea&s;t of Dedication, there; in which the Faith is the &s;ame as the <HI>Sardican.</HI> It is not long after, that,<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">At<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ana&s; Ap<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">l. <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> <HI>721.</HI> ad Soli|<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters">. p. <HI>825,</HI> &amp; <HI><GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">28.</HI> S<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">z. l. <HI>3</HI> c <HI>22, 23</HI></NOTE> even, <HI>Valens</HI> and <HI>Ur&s;acius</HI> came in with their Libel, &s;ign'd with their own hands; and pre&s;ented it to <HI>Julius</HI> Bi&s;hop of <HI>Rome,</HI> with a Letter of &s;ubmi&s;&s;ion, deliver'd by them to <HI>Atha|na&s;ius:</HI> In the fir&s;t of which, they <HI>Anathematize,</HI> and for ever condemn, the <HI>Arian</HI> Here&s;y, and it<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> A&s;&s;erters in the&s;e words, <HI>We at pre&s;ent,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg"><GAP DESC="foreign">.</NOTE> <HI>and for ever, d<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> Anath<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">matize the Heretical</HI> Arius, <HI>and th<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">&s;<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 word"> defend him, and &s;a<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> t<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">at th<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters"> <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 span"> the Son
<PB N="113" REF="71"> was not, and that Christ exi&s;ts of that, which once had no being: And tho&s;e tha<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> deny Chri&s;t to be God, and the Son of God before the Ages.</HI> And in this they &s;hew them&s;elves tho<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ow pac'd <HI>Eu&s;ebians,</HI> who&s;e profe&s;&s;ion of <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">aith was all along before the &s;ame; but<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">L, 2. <HI>c.</HI> 19.</NOTE> <HI>Socrates</HI> goes farther, and &s;ayes, that they de|clared for the <HI>Homoou&s;ian</HI> explication, at the &s;ame time; for which we have only his bare a&s;&s;ertion: Their Form of Recan|tation is a much better evidence:<NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg">Sozomen, ibid. &s;upra.</NOTE> where we find no &s;uch thing: be&s;ides, it was no more than was, in that juncture, indi&s;|pen&s;ably requir'd, in order to an admi&s;&s;ion into the Catholick Communion; but a Profe&s;&s;ion, that the Father and the Son were of the &s;ame &s;ub&s;tance, and of the E<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ernal Generation, were &s;uf|ficient for it; the <HI>Homoou&s;ion</HI> Faith being really, and nece&s;&s;arily, included in it; tho &s;ome men pleas'd them&s;elves, that they did not verbally, and in &s;o many letters, &s;ay it. Yet I could be in|clinable to think, that they might do it: &s;ince their Submi&s;&s;ion was occa&s;ioned by <HI>Athana&s;ius</HI>'s &s;ucce&s;s in the Council, and the Churches pro&s;perity upon it, th<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ough the favour of the two Em|perours: Fo<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> what will not Men of their broad Principles do, when their Bi&s;hopricks and Temporalities are otherwi&s;e at &s;take? Did not they afterwards turn direct <HI>Euzoian Arians;</HI> and a&s;&s;ert the Son a Creature, in the Council of <HI>Ariminum,</HI> to oblige the Emperor? And it was by their means and incitation, that <HI>Con|&s;tantius</HI> rai&s;ed heavy per&s;ecutions upon all that refu&s;ed to do the &s;ame, and took their benefices from them. Of which I &s;hall &s;peak more anon.</P>
<P>And if we thorowly con&s;ider, and compare the Acts of the&s;e two Councils, <HI>viz.</HI> the true, and the <HI>p&s;eudo Sardican,</HI> in relation to the <HI>Athana&s;ian</HI> Faith; we &s;hall find, that both of them have in their <HI>Anathema's,</HI> alike omitted the <HI>Homoou&s;ian</HI> explication, and, as the rea&s;on, why the true one remov'd <HI>Theodorus, Narci&s;&s;us, Acacius, Stephanus, Ur&s;acius, Valens,</HI> &amp;c. from the Catholick Church, is &s;aid to be,<NOTE N="&Verbar;" PLACE="marg">Literae Synod. apud Theodor. l. <HI>2.</HI> c. <HI>9.</HI></NOTE> becau&s;e,<NOTE PLACE="marg"><GAP DESC="foreign">.</NOTE> <HI>They &s;eparated the Son from the Substance, and Divinity of the Father, and a&s;|&s;erted Chri&s;t to be God, but not the tru<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> God; to be a Son, but not the true S<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">n: to be begotten, and al&s;o unbegotten.</HI> So the fal&s;e one<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Vid. Hil. ar. de Synod. &amp; Epi&s;t. p&s;eud. Sard. Syn. apud Baron ann. <HI><GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">47.</HI> num. <HI>8.</HI></NOTE> <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">i<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ct<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">, out of its Communion al<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> that <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">&s;&s;ert the &s;ame. As it will appear to him, who will take the pains to compare the &s;en&s;e of its words,
<PB N="114" REF="72"> as I have a little above given an account of them, with the words immediately foregoing, and <HI>Valens</HI>'s and <HI>&V;r&s;acius</HI>'s form of Re|cantation, abovementioned, are an exemplification of the former. In which the word, <GAP DESC="foreign">, is not. And as this their Recantation was made purely out of fear and a &s;ervile complyance with the Synod, &s;o we are to think that it was drawn up and &s;ub&s;crib'd according to the &s;en&s;e of the Synod, and their practice then in re|ceiving Penitents: it would not, &s;urely, otherwi&s;e, have been re|ceiv'd by <HI>Julius</HI> of <HI>Rome.</HI> And as <HI>Athana&s;ius</HI> was then at <HI>Rome</HI> with <HI>Julius,</HI> and receiv'd, at the &s;ame time, tho&s;e two penitent Bi|&s;hops, upon the terms<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Athan. ad Solitar. p. <HI>826, 829.</HI> Sozomen. ibid. &s;upra.</NOTE> <HI>Julius</HI> did (agreeably hereunto he is &s;aid immediately upon it, to leave the We&s;t and go for <HI>Egypt</HI>) &s;o he may mean no more than what their Recantation directly imports by that <HI>Homoou&s;iani&s;m,</HI> which he<NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg">Socrat. ibid. &s;upra.</NOTE> exhorts certain Chri&s;tians to fol|low, who addre&s;s'd them&s;elves to him in his way betwixt <HI>Syria</HI> and <HI>Alexandria;</HI> as that &s;en&s;e which he oppo&s;es to <HI>Ariani&s;m.</HI> No|thing is more certain, than that neither <HI>Julius</HI> nor <HI>Athana&s;ius,</HI> would have receiv'd <HI>Valens</HI> and <HI>Ur&s;acius,</HI> upon any other Recan|tation, but that which directly and immediately included the <HI>one Sub&s;tance;</HI> tho it might have been more fully expre&s;&s;ive in the explication of it. And we have &s;o much the more rea&s;on to think he meant no more by it; becau&s;e, he &s;ays, they a&s;&s;erted the <HI>Con&s;ub&s;tantial</HI> Faith in their Recantation, which they made to <HI>Ju|lius:</HI> tho in words they there declare no &s;uch thing; but only<NOTE N="&Verbar;" PLACE="marg">Socrat. ibid. c. <HI>29.</HI> ver&s;. ini|tium.</NOTE> <HI>anathematize</HI> tho&s;e that a&s;&s;ent to <HI>Arius,</HI> in his denying the Eter|nal Generation.</P>
<P>I &s;hall take leave to digre&s;s a little and ob&s;erve; that when the Eccle&s;ia&s;tical Authors and Hi&s;torians u&s;e the Name, <HI>Arians,</HI> within this di&s;tance of time, to which we have limited our pre&s;ent inquiry: they &s;eldome are to be apprehended to mean by it, tho&s;e that a&s;|&s;ert the Son to have been a Creature; &s;ince all &s;uch were con|demn'd and &s;ilenc'd at the Council of <HI>Nicea,</HI> and &s;o continued dur|ing our <HI>Epoche;</HI> &s;ave, that now and then, two or three, as <HI>Valens, Ur&s;acius,</HI> and their complices, &s;tarted up a fre&s;h, and a&s;&s;erted, that Here&s;ie, and recanted it: Nor is it u&s;ed by them to repre|&s;ent tho&s;e that oppo&s;e the <HI>Nicene Homoou&s;ian</HI> explication: But they generally repre&s;ent by it the <HI>Eu&s;ebians,</HI> who &s;ub&s;cribed the <HI>Nicene</HI> Doctrine, in the true &s;en&s;e of the Council; and all along, in &s;hew at lea&s;t, a&s;&s;erted and maintained the Eternal Generation, and but one <GAP DESC="foreign">, or <HI>unbegotten,</HI> never oppo&s;ing <GAP DESC="foreign">, but drew up their Scheme without it, and thought it to be better
<PB N="115" REF="72"> omitted. Thus <HI>Socrates</HI> calls the Bi&s;hops of the <HI>Antiochian</HI> Coun|cil, <HI>Arians:</HI> When their four Creeds, of which he gives an ac|count, declare them to be as far from tho&s;e of the Sect that were call'd <HI>Exoucontite,</HI> as the mo&s;t zealous <HI>Homoou&s;ians</HI> have ever been; and that they &s;avour'd of nothing le&s;s than of a&s;&s;erting the Son to be made in time and of nothing: And others did the &s;ame, when they were not liable to be &s;u&s;pected as Setters for the <HI>Aetian,</HI> or Eunomian <HI>Ariani&s;me:</HI> Nor have the <HI>Homoou&s;ians</HI> ever contra-di|di&s;tingui&s;ht them&s;elves to the <HI>Eu&s;ebians,</HI> but by a&s;&s;erting the <HI>Ni|cene</HI> Article, according to its own Explication of it. This u&s;e of the word <HI>Arians,</HI> might be exemplified all along in <HI>Athana&s;ius;</HI> but I will make this alone further in&s;tance of it, taken out of his<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>Pag.</HI> 616.</NOTE> <HI>Apology;</HI> where <HI>Eu&s;ebius, Theognis,</HI> with others, are called <HI>Arians:</HI> whereas nothing is more &s;ure, than that that Synod never once profe&s;&s;ed it &s;elf to be of the <HI>Arian</HI> Here&s;ie; it was then too early for them to do it: Nor would <HI>Constantine</HI> have indured them if they had: Be&s;ides, we know that<NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg">Socrat. H. E. l. <HI>1.</HI> c. <HI>10, 18, 25.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Eu&s;ebius</HI> of <HI>Nicomedia, Theognis,</HI> and <HI>Arius,</HI> recanted publickly, and declar'd for the <HI>Nicen</HI> Faith; thereby to oblige <HI>Con&s;tantine;</HI> and they prevail'd &s;o much upon him, that he gave leave for it, and the Synod of <HI>Tyre</HI> was call'd, &s;olely for the abdication of <HI>Athana&s;ius,</HI> in the management of which they &s;hew'd them&s;elves true <HI>Eu&s;ebian Arians,</HI> who did not openly pretend to de&s;troy the Faith, but to de&s;troy the rightful &s;ucce&s;&s;ion of the Bi&s;hops, and by that means, they in &s;ome mea&s;ure effected it, when in the end of <HI>Con&s;tantius</HI>'s Reign, they placed them&s;elves in the principle Sees of Chri&s;tendome. The word <HI>Se|mi-Arian</HI> is often u&s;ed by Eccle&s;ia&s;tical men: (and is often wrong applied by them) but it is never u&s;ed (if I do not mi&s;take) within this interval of time, concerning which we are now making an inquiry, tho the thing it &s;elf is obvious there. But the word, <HI>Arian,</HI> is there all along promi&s;cuou&s;ly u&s;ed, and applyed to all tho&s;e that did not come up to the top of the <HI>Nicene</HI> Creed, tho it is as manife&s;t as the Sun is, in a clear day at noon, that all of them did not deny the Eternal Nature of the Son of God, and the <HI>Homoou&s;ian</HI> explication of it. And if he, who &s;hall peru&s;e the Hi&s;tory of <HI>Ariani&s;me</HI> contain'd within our <HI>Epoche,</HI> does omit to ob&s;erve this various u&s;e of the word, it will involve him in a great, and even, inextricable confu&s;ion: But he, e&s;pecially, that reads this Di&s;cour&s;e, mu&s;t needs be at a lo&s;s; for we here a&s;&s;ert <HI>Ariani&s;me</HI> to have cea&s;ed, &s;ince the Council of <HI>Nicea,</HI> and yet there is nothing &s;o frequent here as the terms. <HI>Arians</HI> and <HI>Ari|ani&s;me</HI>
<PB N="116" REF="73"> throughout it. Neither will the di&s;traction be le&s;s to him who reads on, in the clo&s;e of <HI>Constantius</HI>'s Reign, to the end of <HI>Julian</HI>'s and <HI>Valens</HI>'s Reign; where the <HI>Arians, Eunomians, Eudo|xians, Acaciu<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">s,</HI> &amp;c. are promi&s;cuou&s;ly called <HI>Arians;</HI> and, if the various u&s;e of that name be not ob&s;erv'd, they cannot be di&s;tin|gui&s;hed a &s;under.</P>
<P>But to r<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">turn to our Councils: upon a further con&s;ideration of which w<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> &s;hall find, that neither the fir&s;t and true Council, which met at <HI>Sardica</HI> by <HI>Con&s;tantius</HI>'s and <HI>C<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">nstans</HI>'s appointment, nor the fal&s;e Council, which divi<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ed and removed to <HI>Philiopolis,</HI> did conv<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ne primarily, and immediately, in the Empires de&s;ign, and their own, upon the account of Faith. And that which they determin'd in either or both, was an emergent, upon their A&s;&s;em|bling: But they met upon the <HI>Eu&s;ebians</HI> complaints concerning <HI>Athana&s;ius, Marcellus</HI> of <HI>Ancyra, A&s;clepas</HI> of <HI>Gaza,</HI> and <HI>Paulus</HI> of <HI>Constantinople;</HI> whom the <HI>Eu&s;ebians</HI> had remov'd from their Bi|&s;hopricks, and <HI>Julius</HI> of <HI>Rome</HI> had order'd, upon his hearing their Cau&s;e in a Synod there, to be re&s;tored: And it was their great work to revi&s;e and examine their Cau&s;es, and the Sentences, which had been given for and again&s;t them: Both &s;ides refu&s;ing to de&s;ert tho&s;e Bi&s;hops, whom they apprehended to be unju&s;t|ly and uncanonically remov'd: Or, to receive tho&s;e, whom they believ'd to be <HI>unju&s;tly</HI> and <HI>uncanononically,</HI> enthron'd; tho the Empire and a Synod had united in the effecting of it: As we know <HI>Con&s;tantine</HI> and a Synod did in depo&s;ing <HI>Athana&s;ius</HI> at <HI>Tyre;</HI> &s;o likewi&s;e did <HI>Con&s;tantius</HI> and a Syond in enthroning <HI>Gre|gory</HI> at <HI>Antioch:</HI> So again did <HI>Constantius, Con&s;tans,</HI> and the true <HI>Sardican</HI> Synod, in re&s;toring <HI>Athana&s;ius,</HI> and the Bi&s;hops who had been ejected with him. The <HI>Homoou&s;ians</HI> receiv'd <HI>Athana&s;ius,</HI> and ejected <HI>Gregory;</HI> while the <HI>Eu&s;ebians</HI> retain'd <HI>Gregory,</HI> and rejected <HI>Athana&s;ius;</HI> proceeding <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">pon this known rule in Church Polity, receiv'd by all who pretend to any Church Government, except Doctor <HI>Hody, viz.</HI> that an <HI>unju&s;t</HI> and <HI>uncanonical Deprivation</HI> does not acquit the &s;ubject believers of their dependance on their Bi|&s;hop, &s;o depriv'd: Again, that an <HI>unju&s;t</HI> and <HI>uncanonical po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion</HI> will not vouch the &s;u<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">j<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ct believers in paying their obedience to a Bi&s;hop &s;o po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ed. And this their Synodical Acts do abun|dantly manife&s;t.</P>
<P>Fir&s;t nothing is more plain than this, in th<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"><NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Ep. Synod. ad Jul. Epi&s;cop. R. apud Hilarium in fragment. &amp; ad Ae<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">yptios. Ep. Synod. Eucycl. apud Theod. <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">. E. l. <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">. c. <HI>8.</HI> Athana&s;. Apol. p. <HI>755, 75<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">.</HI> &amp; Ep. ad Solitar. p. <HI>8<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">0.</HI></NOTE> proceedings of the true Synod: It be|ing its bu&s;ine&s;s to review and examine the
<PB N="117" REF="73"> Crimes which had been charg'd upon <HI>Athana&s;ius,</HI> in the Councils of <HI>Tyre</HI> and <HI>Antioch:</HI> And finding them to be fal&s;e and malicious, it flung them off, but re&s;tor'd him to his Chair, and wrote <HI>Letters</HI> to the people of his Dioce&s;s, which commanded them to receive him as their rightful Bi&s;hop: The &s;ame Synod remov'd <HI>Gregory</HI> (with the re&s;t of the intruders upon the &s;ame authority) from the <HI>Alexandrian</HI> See; commanding the people, that they &s;hould neither own, nor receive him for their Bi&s;hop.</P>
<P>Again: The <HI>Eu&s;ebians</HI> fir&s;t refu&s;ed to joyn with the true <HI>Sardi|can</HI> Synod, for this rea&s;on, <HI>viz.</HI> becau&s;e <HI>Athana&s;ius</HI> and the re&s;t that had been abdicated by them, were admitted into the Synod, as lawful Bi&s;hops; and having done this they<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Socr. l. <HI>2.</HI> c. <HI>16.</HI></NOTE> conveen'd in <HI>Thrace,</HI> where they condemn'd and ejected, not only <HI>Athana&s;ius, Paulus,</HI> &amp;c. But &s;everal other Bi&s;hops, who had communicated with <HI>Athana&s;ius,</HI> &amp;c. after their fal&s;e Synods had condemn'd them, or had any wayes own'd or a&s;&s;i&s;ted them, under their depo&s;ition; as<NOTE N="&Verbar;" PLACE="marg">Baron. &s;upra Ann. <HI>347.</HI> num. <HI>80.</HI></NOTE> <HI>H<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">&s;ius</HI> of <HI>Cor+duba, Maximus</HI> of <HI>Treves;</HI> even <HI>Julius</HI> Bi&s;hop of <HI>Rome:</HI> Which la&s;t they proceeded upon with particular, aggravations: <HI>as the ri&s;e of their communion with them;</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg"><GAP DESC="foreign"> &V;t Principem &amp; Ducem malorum, qui primus januam Communionis &s;celeratis atque damnatis operuit.</NOTE> <HI>as the Chief and Cap|tain of all evils: as he who f<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">r&s;t open'd a door for com|munion with tho&s;e wicked men;</HI> but particularly in that he cleer'd and defended <HI>Athana&s;ius;</HI> and they commanded all other Bi&s;hops in the u&s;ual Mandatory Church language;<NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg">S<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">zom l. <HI>2.</HI> c. <HI>10.</HI></NOTE> <NOTE PLACE="marg"><GAP DESC="foreign">.</NOTE> <HI>That they do not enter into communion with them, nor write to them, nor receive any writing,</HI> nor Letters of Communion <HI>from them.</HI> And it is farther remarkable; that they here proceeded again&s;t none of them for matters of Faith, &s;ave only <HI>Marcellus:</HI> Whom they condemned as a <HI>Photinian,</HI> and <HI>Sa|mo&s;etanian.</HI> Whence we may conclude, that they would al&s;o have cen&s;ured <HI>Athana&s;ius,</HI> and the re&s;t, as <HI>Homoou&s;ians,</HI> if their <HI>Eu|&s;ebian</HI> principles, own'd and profe&s;sed, at that time of day, would have born them out in it: they certainly had then, declared a|gain&s;t them, as they did afterwards, as heretical, but for that rea&s;on. But much more if the&s;e <HI>Eu&s;ebians</HI> had, then, openly pro|fe&s;&s;ed them&s;elves <HI>Exoukontians,</HI> and a&s;&s;erted the Son to be a Crea|ture: but that only which they in&s;i&s;ted upon, and urg'd again&s;t them was breach of Unity and Di&s;cipline: and we are moreo|ver to ob&s;erve, that an <HI>unju&s;t</HI> and <HI>uncanonical po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion,</HI> who&s;e hand &s;oever gave it, did not create an Epi&s;copal right to him that re|ceiv'd it, tho it was the Empires own hand: for both <HI>Con&s;tanti|us</HI>
<PB N="118" REF="74"> and <HI>Con&s;tans</HI> pre&s;ided in the true <HI>Sardican</HI> Council; but they notwith&s;tanding rejected <HI>Athana&s;ius,</HI> &amp;c. tho not for any Here|&s;ie; as <HI>Julius</HI> before had own'd and protected them again&s;t <HI>Con&s;tan|tius,</HI> and again&s;t <HI>Con&s;tantine</HI> the Great, in the Synod of <HI>Tyre</HI> and <HI>Antioch.</HI><NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">See Hil. &s;upra.</NOTE></P>
<P>Indeed the <HI>Orientals</HI> chiefly pleaded their Priviledges again&s;t the <HI>Occidentals;</HI> and <HI>Athana&s;ius</HI>'s cau&s;e may be &s;aid to be the oc|ca&s;ion of the fir&s;t breach betwixt them: The<NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg">Socrat. l. <HI>2.</HI> c. <HI>11.</HI></NOTE> former then refu|&s;ing to appear before <HI>Julius</HI> at <HI>Rome;</HI> and pleading that he had no right to take cognizance of their cau&s;e; they farther in&s;i&s;ted upon it till it became a rupture, and &s;eparation: And the other great Churches after this, pleaded the &s;ame right for &s;ome time, 'till <HI>Rome</HI>'s potency prevail'd, and &s;wallow'd them up: But the <HI>Eastern</HI> Churches retain their character a part, and do not whol|ly &s;ubmit to <HI>Romes</HI> yoke at this day; but of this by the way. As to the&s;e Synodical Actions them&s;elves, they may be &s;een at large in<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>L.</HI> 3. <HI>c.</HI> 10.</NOTE> <HI>Sozomen</HI> and<NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg">In fragmen|tis, l. <HI>2.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Hillary.</HI> A Copy of them has been &s;ome time &s;ince &s;et out by <HI>Nicolaus Faber,</HI> as he found it in the Library of <HI>Petrus Pitheus,</HI> and it is printed at large by Cardinal<NOTE N="&Verbar;" PLACE="marg"><HI>Ann.</HI> 347. <HI>num.</HI> 80.</NOTE> <HI>Baronius.</HI></P>
<P>It will appear very probable, that the rejecting <HI>Athana&s;ius,</HI> and not communicating with him, but with <HI>Gregory</HI> upon the <HI>unju&s;t</HI> and <HI>uncanonical Deprivation</HI> of the former, and <HI>po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ing</HI> the latter, was the <HI>Eu&s;ebians,</HI> not only principle, but &s;ole fault, at that time; &s;ince upon <HI>Athana&s;ius</HI>'s being re&s;tored, after the <HI>Sardican</HI> Synod, by <HI>Con&s;tantius</HI>'s order, tho not without the importunity and threats of <HI>Con&s;tans;</HI> When <HI>Athana&s;ius</HI> pa&s;&s;ed through <HI>Syria</HI> and <HI>Pale&s;tine,</HI> in his way to <HI>Alexand<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ia,</HI> and the Clergy of tho&s;e Churches uni|ted in a Synod,<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Socrat. l. <HI>2.</HI> c. <HI>19.</HI> Athana&s;. ad Solitar. p. <HI>825.</HI></NOTE> and addre&s;s'd him; it was the only fault that we know of which they then repented; confe&s;&s;ing with grief and re|&s;titution, (its ju&s;t effect) that they had voted for his abdication; and receiving him in his Station, as Bi&s;hop of <HI>Alexandria.</HI> But can we believe that <HI>Athana&s;ius</HI> would have receiv'd them into Com|munion, as he then did, upon that &s;ingle Repentance, if they had been guilty at the &s;ame time, of <HI>Ariani&s;m,</HI> and had as openly a&s;&s;erted the <HI>Son</HI> to be a Creature, as they had a&s;&s;ented to his depo&s;ition; and not have required the &s;ame Repentance for it of them? Or can we, by any means, think, that he ab&s;tain'd from their Com|munion before, becau&s;e they were <HI>Arians,</HI> and for that only rea|&s;on, and not becau&s;e of their Schi&s;m, and breach of Church U|nion, in that they a&s;&s;ented to a fal&s;e Bi&s;hop, placed in his own See; &s;ince he did not require of them the &s;ame repentance for the
<PB N="119" REF="74"> former, he did for the latter, in order to his admitting them to his Communion? Nay, when he required no repentance of them upon the account of the former, neither does there appear any rea&s;on to be given, why <HI>Valens</HI> and <HI>Ur&s;acius,</HI> having before Recant|ed their <HI>Ariani&s;m</HI> at <HI>Rome,</HI> &s;hould afterwards reconcile them&s;elves to <HI>Athana&s;ius,</HI> &s;o &s;olemnly as<NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg">Sozomen. l. <HI>3.</HI> c <HI>23.</HI></NOTE> they did, if their <HI>Ariani&s;m</HI> alone had made the breach: Since, if &s;o? their Recantation had made it up. Nor may we readily apprehend, &s;ince the Empire, all along de|pos'd him, or confirm'd his depo&s;ition; what need they had of that reconciliation they procur'd upon their repentance and com|pliance; if we grant our Adver&s;aries &s;uppo&s;ition, which is, that a pre&s;ent &s;ecular, local, di&s;placing a Bi&s;hop, extingui&s;hes all his re|lations, as &s;uch, to the Chri&s;tian World: Or, again, that its po&s;|&s;e&s;&s;ing a Bi&s;hop, makes him a lawful <HI>Succe&s;&s;or,</HI> and <HI>ip&s;o facto</HI> in|&s;tates him in a ju&s;t relation to all Chri&s;tians. And &s;urely the Bi|&s;hops of <HI>Syria</HI> and <HI>Pale&s;tine</HI> might have &s;aved their Repentance, at lea&s;t, their, then, Reconciliation had been u&s;ele&s;s for the &s;ame con&s;iderations. In a word,<NOTE N="&Verbar;" PLACE="marg">Ibid. &s;upra.</NOTE> <HI>Athana&s;ius</HI> gives us an account of &s;eve+ral of them, that did voluntarily come into him, and purge them|&s;elves of their &s;eparation, and other unju&s;t dealings towards them; and <HI>anathematiz'd murther, here&s;ie;</HI> and declar'd,<NOTE PLACE="marg"><GAP DESC="foreign">,</NOTE> that they appear|ed among the <HI>Eu&s;ebians</HI> with their bodies, but did congregate in their minds with him; and con&s;equently their de&s;erting him, and adhereing to an unlawful <HI>Succe&s;&s;or,</HI> was their fault, as well as their here&s;ie: Tho Here&s;ie there might imply no more than their Schi&s;m, according to its frequent acceptation among&s;t the Ancients.</P>
<P>But, be&s;ides the&s;e, we find, in Story, &s;everal Bi&s;hops to have comply'd with <HI>Athana&s;ius</HI>'s depo&s;ition, and, con&s;equently to have receiv'd his <HI>Succe&s;&s;or,</HI> either out of fear, or in hopes, thereby, to abate the rigour of the Per&s;ecution, or upon &s;ome little by re|&s;pects, which that time of trial put them upon; but the&s;e Men were, at the &s;ame time, not only not tainted with the <HI>Eud<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">xian,</HI> and <HI>Aetian Ariani&s;m,</HI> but not &s;u&s;pected of it. They openly declar'd and prote&s;ted again&s;t it, and &s;uffer'd to impri&s;onment, or exile, rather than own or &s;ub&s;cribe to it. I'le in&s;tance on|ly in the&s;e two, <HI>viz. Diony&s;ius</HI> Bi&s;hop of <HI>Millane,</HI> and <HI>Gregory Nazianzen;</HI> the fir&s;t of which hath given a large te&s;timony of his re&s;olution and con&s;tancy in adhereing to <HI>Athana&s;ius,</HI> in the Council of <HI>Millane;</HI> he was bani&s;hed for it by <HI>Constantius,</HI> as we read in<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>L.</HI> 2. <HI>c.</HI> 29.</NOTE> <HI>Socrates;</HI> who might al&s;o have found in <HI>Lucifer Calari|tanus,</HI> that after his Sub&s;cription again&s;t <HI>Athana&s;ius,</HI> he was bani&s;h|ed
<PB N="120" REF="75"> by <HI>Con&s;tantius,</HI> becau&s;e he would not be an <HI>Arian, quod</HI> Aria|nus <HI>e&s;&s;e noluit, mi&s;eris in exilum,</HI> as<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Pro Athana&s;. ad Con&s;tant l. <HI>2.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Lucifer</HI> there tells the Emperor. And we have it in<NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg">Hi&s;t. Sa<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">r. l. <HI>2.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Sulpitius Severus,</HI> that he &s;ub&s;cribed with this provi&s;ion, that he &s;hould not be inroll'd as &s;uch. St. <HI>Gregory</HI><NOTE N="&Verbar;" PLACE="marg">In encomi.</NOTE> <HI>Na|zianzen</HI> is as well known to have been un&s;potted in that re&s;pect: But notwith&s;tanding him&s;elf gives us an account of his recidivation in &s;ub&s;cribing again&s;t <HI>Athana&s;ius,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Athan. inter opera eju&s;. Ed. Pari&s;.</NOTE> when he was a young man; and withal, of his &s;orrow and true repentance for it. Now, &s;hall we think, that the Catholicks did not then ab&s;ent from their Communion, as much as <HI>Athana&s;ius</HI> did from the Bi&s;hops of <HI>Syria</HI> and <HI>Pale&s;tina,</HI> above mention'd, until they recanted their &s;ub&s;cri|ptions? But if our Adver&s;aries will per&s;i&s;t, that tho&s;e Bi&s;hops were <HI>Arians,</HI> and he did not communicate with them, for that rea&s;on: Yet, it cannot be the rea&s;on why the Catholicks ab|&s;ented from the others Communion; becau&s;e they profe&s;&s;edly were not <HI>Arians:</HI> No man pretends they were. If it be farther &s;aid, that their quitting <HI>Athana&s;ius</HI> was not &s;inful, or a ju&s;t ground for the <HI>Athana&s;ians</HI> to &s;eparate from them; this will be abun|dantly confuted from the &s;orrow and repentance which it co&s;t them; which as it always ari&s;es from the &s;en&s;e of a precede|ing guilt; &s;o their guilt, and con&s;cientiou&s;ne&s;s of it, could ari&s;e from no other con&s;ideration then their fal&s;e Union under an unlawful <HI>Po&s;&s;e&s;&s;or;</HI> and ju&s;t exclu&s;ion from the true Church, up|on it; &s;ince, at the &s;ame time, their Morals and Doctrinals, in re&s;pect of other Here&s;ies, as well as in re&s;pect of <HI>Ariani&s;m,</HI> were un&s;potted: And that famous artifice, mention'd by the Au|thor of an<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Serm<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">n <HI>15.</HI> de Santii S. Ambro&s;. ad Script.</NOTE> Oration on the birth day of <HI>Eu&s;ebius Vercellen&s;is,</HI> by which the &s;aid <HI>Eu&s;ebius</HI> (with &s;ome perhaps, abatement to his reputation) p<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">evail'd to have <HI>Dioni&s;ius</HI>'s &s;ub&s;cription blotted out; pretending, that, if it was era&s;ed, he would &s;ub&s;cribe: But that he would not otherwi&s;e, becau&s;e <HI>Dioni&s;ius</HI> was a young man, and had &s;till call'd him Father, and it would not be decent if his &s;ub&s;cription was lowermo&s;t; but when it was expung'd, him&s;elf refu&s;ed, and openly declar'd, that as he would not per|mit his Son to appear upon record to have communicated with them, much le&s;s would he pollute his own hand in &s;ub&s;cribing: This (I &s;ay) is a plain indication of the per&s;onal gui<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">t that was contracted by it; and, al&s;o, that the action it &s;elf was infamous in the eyes of men: And though <HI>Dioni&s;ius</HI> had, e're that, re|pented of it; that was not a &s;ufficient expiation, but its foor&s;t<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ps we e to be era&s;ed and no remains of it, as neer as they could, were to be left to po&s;terity.</P>
<PB N="121" REF="75">
<P>As for the Council of <HI>Millane,</HI> which &s;ucceeded the Council of <HI>Sardica</HI> within a few yea<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">s: Nothing &s;eems nece&s;&s;ary to be &s;aid here concerning it; &s;ince I have already taken notice and prov'd, that it was call'd by <HI>Con&s;tantius</HI> on purpo&s;e to ratify the proceedings again&s;t <HI>Athana&s;ius,</HI> in the Council of <HI>Tyre:</HI> Upon the obtaining of which, in a full Synod of <HI>Ea&s;tern</HI> and <HI>We&s;tern</HI> Bi&s;hops, (for his aim was to have them all meet the<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">e) he did not doubt but that he &s;hould wholly, and finally, &s;hut him out of <HI>Alexandria,</HI> and &s;ilence him for ever, and that no Arti|cles of Faith were debated, much le&s;s any new ones introduced, or old ones ca&s;hier'd, in oppo&s;ition to the precedeing <HI>Antiochian</HI> Creeds, &s;o that whe<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> <HI>Con&s;tantius</HI> found him&s;elf di&s;appointed of his purpo&s;e, for few of the <HI>Ea&s;tern</HI> Bi&s;hops appear'd, and all the <HI>We&s;tern</HI> declar'd again&s;t <HI>Athana&s;ius</HI>'s abdication, he broke up the Synod; or, rather, tran&s;lated it to his Palace. No bu|&s;ine&s;s was there done; excepting that he condemned <HI>Athana&s;ius</HI> in his own per&s;on, and right, a&s;&s;uming that Sacerdotal Power, which neither him&s;elf, nor any other Emperor had done before him: For which he was &s;everely reprov'd by <HI>Athana&s;ius, Ho&s;ius,</HI> and others of the Catholick Bi&s;hops. Though<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Hi&s;t. Sacr. l. <HI>2.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Sulpitius Se|verus</HI> &s;aith, that the <HI>Eu&s;ebians,</HI> being the major part, publi&s;h'd an Epi&s;tle in the Emperors name, full of bla&s;phemous points of Faith, but the People of <HI>Millane</HI> rejected it; they being emi|nent for their Orthodoxy: But we have no other account of it, and it &s;unk.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="3" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT III.</HEAD>
<P>'ERE I go on to the following Councils, I &s;hall fir&s;t make a &s;top, and give an account of <HI>Con&s;tantius</HI>'s <HI>Inqui&s;ition</HI> a|gain&s;t <HI>Liberius&punc;</HI> and <HI>Ho&s;ius:</HI> and of their an&s;wers, rea&s;ons, and vindication of them&s;elves: Al&s;o, of their &s;ufferings, occa&s;ion'd by their Courage and Re&s;olution in adhereing to <HI>Athana&s;ius,</HI> and <HI>Constantius</HI>'s di&s;appointment by it, in the Council of <HI>Millane:</HI> In all which we &s;hall find that he continued his fir&s;t de&s;ign and mea&s;ures, though his ultimate aim was to re&s;tore the pri|migen<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">a&punc; <HI>Ariani&s;m,</HI> a&s;&s;erted and maintain'd by <HI>Arius,</HI> in the Council of <HI>Nicea;</HI> which the Catholick Bi&s;hops w<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="3 letters"> <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">horowly &s;en&s;ible <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">f. And <HI>Athana&s;ius,</HI> accordingly, &s;ays, <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ha<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> <HI>Constan<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ius</HI>'s &s;evere p<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">oceedings again&s;t the&s;e two great Pr<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters">a<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">e<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">, were the effect of his &s;tudy and zeal for it; and preludi<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters">s to it: But
<PB N="122" REF="76"> his main de&s;ire and endeavours were wholly to &s;uppre&s;s<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Ep. ad Solit. p. <HI>842.</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">.</NOTE> <HI>Atha|na&s;ius:</HI> And when he requir'd the a&s;&s;i&s;tance of tho&s;e two Bi|&s;hops in it, by their &s;ub&s;cription to his Abdication, and ac|knowledgment of his <HI>Succe&s;&s;or;</HI> they refu&s;ed to do it for the&s;e rea&s;ons: That it would be contrary to the Laws and Duties of Union and Subordination in the Chri&s;tian Church, to which they were indi&s;pen&s;ably oblig'd as Chri&s;tian Bi&s;hops; no le&s;s then to refu&s;e &s;ub&s;cribing to <HI>Ariani&s;m</HI> its &s;elf: That they may not acknowledg that <HI>Deprivation,</HI> which is <HI>unju&s;t</HI> and <HI>uncanonical;</HI> whether it be made by Church hands, but not by Church Laws; or by &s;ecular hands, in oppo&s;ition to both of them: And when St.<NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg">Ad Con&s;tant. in fine.</NOTE> <HI>Hilary</HI> &s;ays, that <HI>Eu&s;ebius Vercellen&s;is</HI> made this pro|po&s;al to the <HI>Eu&s;ebians,</HI> in the Council of <HI>Millane; viz.</HI> That if they would con&s;ent to the Doctrine of <HI>one &s;ub&s;tance,</HI> in the <HI>Nicene</HI> Creed, <HI>he would do all other things which they &s;hould ask,</HI> if it be interpreted,<NOTE N="&Verbar;" PLACE="marg">Omnia &s;e quae po&s;tularent e&s;&s;e facturum.</NOTE> that <HI>Athana&s;ius</HI> &s;hould be given up to their mercy, and the Laws and Rights of the Church &s;acrificed to that one Arti|cle; <HI>Eu&s;ebius</HI> &s;eems to mean nothing le&s;s by it: Nor is it to be lookt upon otherwi&s;e, then as his artifice to di&s;cover their deceit: For, he knew they would not accept of the terms, nor receive the Doctrine of <HI>one &s;ubstance,</HI> in the Synods own explication of it, though they had &s;o frequently pretended that they were not enemies to it; and they gain'd their darling point again&s;t <HI>Atha|na&s;ius</HI> by it. Po&s;&s;ibly <HI>Eu&s;ebius</HI>'s prudence may be que&s;tion'd in making the offer, but no other &s;en&s;e can be put upon it, which is con&s;i&s;tent with his own, and the other Catholick Bi&s;hops practice, concerning <HI>Athana&s;ius</HI>'s, and their remon&s;trance upon <HI>Con&s;tantius,</HI> when he comply'd with his Depo&s;ition, confirming it with his &s;ecular Sentence: Of which I have give an account. Did not the&s;e Catholick Bi&s;hops rather &s;uffer exile than &s;ub&s;cribe to his Condemnation? That duty which is not ab&s;olutly nece&s;&s;ary, but may be commuted, will not warrant Martyrdom in its defence: And tho' I am to forego my liberty and life, rather than quit an Article of Faith; I may not defend it by quitting another duty which my Chri&s;tia|nity alike obliges me to. Neither may any other &s;en&s;e, of this offer, which <HI>Eu&s;ebius</HI> made, be con&s;i&s;tent with <HI>Con&s;tantius</HI>'s far|ther proceedings again&s;t the <HI>Homo&Taurus;&s;ians:</HI> In which the &s;tre&s;s of their trial is put upon their con&s;enting to <HI>Athana&s;ius</HI>'s con|demnation. And, as it is &s;aid to be the primary rea&s;on of his calling the Council of <HI>Millane;</HI> &s;o it is the fir&s;t thing to which
<PB N="123" REF="76"> he endeavours to work <HI>Liberius</HI> and <HI>Ho&s;ius:</HI> Which argues that their obligation to adhere to <HI>Athana&s;ius,</HI> was not an acce&s;&s;ary, but a fir&s;t duty: And that the pre&s;ervation of their Faith was rather a dependant upon their con&s;tant adhe&s;ion to him, (and &s;urely it was &s;o in a great mea&s;ure) then that they believ'd it of le&s;s con&s;equence, that his cau&s;e &s;hall &s;ink, &s;o their Faith was pre&s;erved; had the Emperor been a&s;&s;ur'd, that they therefore, did not de&s;ert <HI>Athana&s;ius,</HI> nor would con&s;ent to the proceedings of <HI>Tyre;</HI> becau&s;e they were not a&s;&s;ur'd that they &s;hould retain the <HI>Athana&s;ian</HI> Faith, the common cour&s;e of &s;uch pro|ceedings mu&s;t have in&s;tructed him, to have fir&s;t drove them from their Faith, &s;ince the effecting of it, would have taken &s;o much argument from them for their adhereing to <HI>Athana&s;ius;</HI> but this was not the method he took: And his proceedings again&s;t <HI>Liberius</HI> and <HI>Ho&s;ius</HI> are particular evidences of it, which now follow, Ile begin with <HI>Ho&s;ius,</HI> though he be la&s;t in our &s;tory.</P>
<P>The account which<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Ep. ad Solit. vita a Gentes. p. <HI>827, 838, 839, &amp;c.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Athana&s;ius</HI> gives of the proceedings up|on <HI>Ho&s;ius,</HI> is; that when <HI>Con&s;tantius</HI> fir&s;t &s;ent for him to <HI>Rome,</HI> and interrogated him, it was &s;olely in reference to his adhereing to <HI>Athana&s;ius,</HI> and to engage him to &s;ub&s;cribe to his Condemna|tion; and to communicate with the <HI>Arians:</HI> That the holy Bi|&s;hop replied to him with &s;uch weight of argument; and gave &s;uch effectual rea&s;ons, why he ought not to do it, that the Emperor was convinced, and di&s;mi&s;s'd him, with leave to return to his Country and Church: but this brought no &s;mall trouble to the <HI>Eu&s;ebians,</HI> e&s;pecially the Eunuchs and Courtiers: which la&s;t, according to their u&s;ual practice, provok'd and embitter'd <HI>Con&s;tantius,</HI> to a greater exce&s;s, again&s;t him: In&s;omuch that he wrote a menacing Letter to him, to the former effect: with the contumelies and reproaches of which, <HI>Athana&s;ius</HI> tells us, the mo&s;t religious Prelate was affected, but its terrors pre|vail'd nothing with him for the changing his opinion, <HI>which he had found upon the firm Rock of Faith;</HI> but he retain'd it, not|with&s;tanding, with his fir&s;t con&s;tancy: When the Emperor wrote a &s;econd Letter to him, mixing &s;ome flatteries with his threats, but to the &s;ame end; requi<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ing him to &s;ub&s;cribe, and become an <HI>Arian,</HI> he reply'd in a large Epi&s;tle, which <HI>Athana&s;ius</HI> has recorded at length, intermixed with In&s;tructions, Arguments, Threats, and reproofs. And towards the end, he declares him&s;elf to be no <HI>Arian;</HI> And that he is &s;o far from joyning
<PB N="124" REF="77"> with, and a&s;&s;i&s;ting, him, that he <HI>Anathematizes</HI> his Doct<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ine: But all the re&s;t of it is purely and &s;olely in relation to <HI>A<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">hana|&s;ius</HI>'s abdication: And fir&s;t he tells him, that, <HI>As he &s;uffer'd before under his Grand Father</HI> Maximianus,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Ibid &s;upsa.</NOTE> <HI>&s;o, if he th<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">nks fit to make a|nother trial of him, he is now ready to &s;uffer any thing rather than join with his</HI> Eu&s;ebians <HI>against</HI> Athana&s;ius, <HI>and &s;hed innocent blood, and betray the Truth. He goes on, and advi&s;es him, that he cea&s;e to give ear to the</HI> Orientals, <HI>and to believe</HI> V<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">lens <HI>and</HI> Ur&s;a|cius; <HI>&s;ince they refu&s;ed to appear in the Council of</HI> Sardica, <HI>and im|plead him there, after they had been &s;ummon'd to it, and the Synod had declar'd him to be innocent: That</HI> Valens <HI>and</HI> Ur&s;acius <HI>had de|clar'd him to be innocent in a Synod at</HI> Rome. <HI>He exhorts him to cea&s;e to offer that violence to Synods and Bi&s;hops by his letters and &s;ecular arm he had heretofore u&s;ed, for the gaining &s;ub&s;criptions, to the end</HI> Valens <HI>and</HI> Ur&s;acius <HI>might have their de&s;ign'd advantages. He puts him in mind, that he is mortal; that he &s;hould fear the day of Judg|ment, and keep him&s;elf pure for that day: And that in order to it, he do not encroach upon the Church Rights, and force the Bi&s;hops, in their Depo&s;itions and Cen&s;ures; but be govern'd by them: &s;uch things be|longing to them, and not to him, by the Ordinance of God; and that it is neither lawful nor &s;afe for him to intermeddle with them.</HI> But our <HI>Abrahamitical</HI> old man, (as <HI>Athana&s;ius</HI> calls him) prevail'd nothing upon <HI>Con&s;tantius,</HI> by this grave advice: But he raves and per&s;ecutes the more upon it. <HI>viz.</HI> Becau&s;e <HI>Ho&s;ius, not only refu&s;es to &s;ub&s;cribe again&s;t</HI> Athana&s;ius, <HI>but condemns the</HI> Eu&s;ebians <HI>for &s;o doing: And declares that it is better to &s;uffer death, then to become thereby, betrayers of the Truth: The Emperor hearing too that &s;everal in</HI> Spain <HI>were of the <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ame opinion; and finding that he could neither by force, nor &s;olicitation, prevail with them to &s;ub&s;cribe, he calls the great Bi&s;hop to him, and bani&s;heth him, for one year, into</HI> Sirmium.</P>
<P>And if we take an account of <HI>Liberius</HI>'s Ca&s;e, as it is related by<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Ep. ad Solitar. p. <HI>832, 833, 835.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Athana&s;ius</HI> and<NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg">H. E. l. <HI>2.</HI> c. <HI>16.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Theodorit;</HI> we &s;hall find that neither <HI>Con|&s;tantius,</HI> nor his <HI>Eunuchs&punc;</HI> no<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> Bi&s;hop <HI>Epictetus,</HI> (which three are appointed to interroga<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters"> <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 word"> cathechi&s;e him) move any que&s;tion to him concerning <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 word"> <HI>Nicene</HI> Faith, and the Eternal Generation: But all which they require of him i<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">, <HI>To cea&s;e his friend&s;hip and comm<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">nion with</HI> Athana&s;ius, <HI>and &s;ub&s;cribe to his Con|demnation, and in the Council of</HI> Tyre; <HI>they tell him, that upon the&s;e terms, he may return to</HI> Rome; <HI>otherwi&s;e he must expect to be tran&s;lated to &s;ome new place.</HI> And to this the Bi&s;hop's an<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">wer is much at the rate with that which <HI>Ho&s;ius</HI> gave to <HI>Con&s;tantius.
<PB N="125" REF="77"> viz. That he could not do it, becau&s;e a Synod at</HI> Rome <HI>had declar'd</HI> A|thana&s;ius <HI>innocent. That the Sentence which tho&s;e Bi&s;hops gave again&s;t him, by whom they pretend he was Synodically condemn'd, was un&s;y|nodical and unlawful: That they condemn'd him to procure the Em|peror's favour, or for fear lea&s;t he &s;hould puni&s;h them, or to avoid the common infamy which they might otherways undergo: That they condemn'd him when he was ab&s;ent, and neither &s;aw the matter of fact done them&s;elves, nor bad it &s;ufficiently prov'd from others: That their own fal&s;e Witne&s;&s;es confe&s;&s;ed the forgery and cheat, and asked pardon for their prevarication: He demands that if</HI> Athana&s;ius <HI>hath de&s;erv'd an animadver&s;ion, and the Church cen&s;ure is to pa&s;s upon him, that it be done by a righful Judgment, and according to the Eccle&s;ia&s;ti|cal form, and the Canons of the Church: And that he values and in&s;i&s;ts upon the Ob&s;ervations of them, as deliver'd from St.</HI> Peter, <HI>more then he does his Palace at</HI> Rome: <HI>And, if he &s;hould be alone here|in (though he was not) it is all one to him: A cau&s;e of Faith (for &s;o he</HI><NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Theod. ibid. <GAP DESC="foreign">:</NOTE> <HI>calls it) is not le&s;&s;<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ned by it: &s;ince three only heretofore, were found, that re&s;i&s;ted the King's Commandment, as he now doth in not &s;ub&s;cribing: That if the Emperor does truly interpo&s;e his care for the Peace of the Church, and he require that our &s;ub&s;criptions for</HI> Athana|&s;ius <HI>be blotted out; then let the &s;ub&s;criptions that are against him be expung'd; and all the abdicat<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">d Bi&s;hops be r<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">&s;tor'd to their proper Sees, and a Synod be call'd with the&s;e Limitations:</HI> As, that it be a great way from the Palace, that the Emperor be not pre|&s;ent in it, let not the Prefect be there,<NOTE PLACE="marg"><GAP DESC="foreign">.</NOTE> let not the Judge threaten, and the fear of God only remain, and re&s;train, and the Ordinance of the Apo&s;tles. <HI>More e&s;pecially, let not any Bi&s;hop be of the Council, and vote in it, who does not receive the</HI> Nicene <HI>Faith, in the true expo&s;ition of it: It being unju&s;t that a que&s;tion, concerning the fact of any one, &s;hould be in&s;pected, before a question of Faith.</HI></P>
<P>It is here to be ob&s;erv'd, that the main thing, if not the all, which the&s;e Bi&s;hops have, above, contended for with <HI>Con&s;tantius,</HI> and his Adherents, is: That the Apo&s;tolical Rule, deliver'd by the Church to them, was the Rule which the Ancients propos'd to be ob&s;erv'd; and them&s;elves adher'd unto, in the abdicating and enthroning of Bi&s;hops, and non communicating or commu|nicating with them: And the &s;ecular Arm in the Emperors own per&s;on, or by his Mini&s;ters, had no judiciary deci&s;ive right in that affair; but was wholly precluded it, as well as matters of Faith. <HI>Liberius,</HI> is not to be &s;o under&s;tood, as if the Emperor
<PB N="126" REF="78"> or his Mini&s;ters, might not come into a Council, but that they may not, when they are there, a&s;&s;ume and exerci&s;e the Rights and Powers which belong to the Bi&s;hops and Clergy: For we well know, that the fir&s;t Council at <HI>Nicea</HI> was, not only call'd by <HI>Con&s;tantine</HI>'s writ, but conveen'd in his Palace, (as the &s;econd General Council at <HI>Con&s;tantinople</HI> afterwards did in <HI>Trullo: i. e.</HI> in a certain arch'd room in <HI>Theodo&s;ius</HI>'s Palace) and the Emperor<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Eu&s;eb. de vit. Con&s;tant. <HI>3.</HI> c. <HI>10.</HI></NOTE> him&s;elf &s;at there in his own Per&s;on; as Emperors have very often, &s;at &s;ince in Councils, and many do at this day, if they &s;o plea&s;e: Likewi&s;e their &s;ecular Mini&s;ters have &s;eldome been out of them: Neither doth it &s;ame rea&s;onable, that the Soveraign Powers &s;hould imbody <HI>Conciliary</HI> Acts and Deci&s;ions into the Em|pire and make them Law blindfold; or without being &s;atisfied in their particular debates; that a reception and legitimation of them is con&s;i&s;tent with the honor and &s;afety of the Govern|ment.</P>
<P>This is all that <HI>Constantius</HI> could obtain from the&s;e two great Men, either by him&s;elf or his Emi&s;&s;aries, in the&s;e two famous Congre&s;&s;es: Only he thought fit to try <HI>Liberius</HI> two ways more, <HI>viz.</HI> by bribes or bani&s;hment: But he de&s;ir'd that the bribes might be given to the Emperor's two Bi&s;hops, <HI>viz. Auxentius</HI> and <HI>Epictetus,</HI> as per&s;ons whom they would gratify, for him&s;elf &s;corn'd them. And he chearfully &s;ubmitted to the bani&s;hment, as that which was his portion, and a Chri&s;tian Bi&s;hop ought <HI>not to think &s;trange</HI> of.</P>
<P><NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg"><GAP DESC="foreign">. Ep. ad Solitar. p. <HI>829.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Athana&s;ius</HI> farther confirms that which we here contend for, when he tells us; that this was not only the &s;tate of the ca&s;es be|tween <HI>Con&s;tantius</HI> and <HI>Ho&s;ius,</HI> and <HI>Liberius,</HI> but between <HI>Con&s;tan|tius</HI> and the other Catholick Bi&s;hops, and that they had only this ha<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">d choice, <HI>either &s;ub&s;cribe, or go out of your Churches:</HI> That the aged Bi&s;hops were driven into exile, <HI>becau&s;e they communicated with him.</HI><NOTE N="&Verbar;" PLACE="marg"><GAP DESC="foreign">. Apol p. <HI>681.</HI></NOTE> And that it was a thing well known, and in every body's mouth, <GAP DESC="foreign">; That <HI>Liberius</HI> Bi&s;hop of <HI>Rome,</HI> the Great <HI>Ho&s;ius, Paulinus, Dioni&s;ius, Eu&s;ebius,</HI> and <HI>Lucifer,</HI> with other Bi&s;hops in <HI>Spain</HI> and <HI>France, Italy</HI> and <HI>Sardinia,</HI> and other pla|ces, and &s;everal Presbyters and Deacons were bani&s;h'd, becau&s;e they refus'd <HI>to &s;ub&s;cribe against us</HI><NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><GAP DESC="foreign">. ibid. p. <HI>692.</HI></NOTE>; And that <HI>Vincentius</HI> of <HI>Capua, Fortunatus</HI> of <HI>Aquileia, Eremius</HI> of <HI>The&s;&s;alonica,</HI> and others that were &s;eated we&s;tward, &s;uffer'd great extremity and afflictions, <HI>until they declar'd, that they would not communicate with us.</HI><NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg"><GAP DESC="foreign">. ibid.</NOTE> With a great deal more to the &s;ame effect in his writings.</P>
<PB N="127" REF="78">
<P>Now, this whole affair of <HI>Con&s;tantius, Ho&s;ius, Liberius,</HI> and ma|ny more Bi&s;hops, being duely con&s;ider'd, can any man think (who thinks at all) if their <HI>Ariani&s;m</HI> was a rea&s;on why the Catholicks did not &s;ubmit to <HI>Con&s;tantius,</HI> and to the <HI>Succe&s;&s;ors,</HI> which he placed upon the&s;e Bi&s;hops, that the <HI>unju&s;t and uncanonical Deprivation</HI> of the antecedeing <HI>rightful Po&s;&s;<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">&s;&s;ors</HI> was not a rea&s;on of it too? What account can be given, that the Emperor and his Emi&s;&s;aries &s;hould urge <HI>Ho&s;ius, Liberius,</HI> and the re&s;t of the depriv'd Bi&s;hops, to <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">e|cal their Sub&s;criptions to <HI>Athana&s;ius,</HI> nay to &s;ub&s;cribe again&s;t him, and to communicate with the <HI>Eu&s;ebian</HI> Bi&s;hops, as Po&s;&s;e&s;|&s;ors; that <HI>Con&s;tantius</HI> &s;hould do this with &s;o much zeal and im|portunity, by argument and menaces, and principally, and in the fir&s;t place, nay &s;ingly, without any relation to <HI>Ariani&s;m,</HI> for the mo&s;t part, if a bare local removing a Bi&s;hop from his See, and po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ing another in it, upon what motives, and by what hands &s;oever, e&s;pecially when unju&s;t and incompetent, did, upon Church Principles, oblige them to de&s;ert the Bi&s;hop &s;o remov'd, and re|ceive the Bi&s;hop &s;o po&s;&s;e&s;s'd, and indemnifie them in each? Or, how came it to pa&s;s, that the Emperor and his Agents were &s;o incon&s;iderate, and unwary, as not to command them to do it, upon Church Principles, and Con&s;cience? Surely nothing is more plain and &s;elf evident, than that <HI>Athana&s;ius, Ho&s;ius,</HI> and their A&s;&s;ociates and Dependants, did not believe the Empire alone, their Synods alone, or both united, were competent for it: Or that Church Principles would ju&s;tifie them in it: Why, if they believ'd otherwi&s;e, <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters">d they plead all along, and peremptorily in&s;i&s;t upon the <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters">&s;tice of their own, and the inju&s;tice of their ad|ver&s;aries Cau<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters">? And even plead the incompetency of their evi|dence, indeed, of every thing el&s;e, which was urged again&s;t them. Again, mu&s;t not <HI>Athana&s;ius, Ho&s;ius,</HI> &amp;c. be very unthinking men, when they plead the Laws and Canons of the Church in their own defence, as mo&s;t &s;acred, and inviolable, as the indi&s;pen&s;able Rules in their Ca&s;e, and when they &s;uffer'd in the Ob&s;ervation of them, and when they requir'd a lawful Synod to determine, apart from the Prince and his Sub&s;titutes, and that the Church Power, but <HI>neither of them,</HI> &s;hould exerci&s;e Juri&s;diction in it? What need all the&s;e Allegations, when, at the &s;ame time, they knew them|&s;elves oblig'd to quit the&s;e <HI>Eu&s;ebian Succe&s;&s;ors,</HI> or any other, pure|ly, and &s;olely upon the account of their being <HI>Arians?</HI> And &s;uch the <HI>Dostor</HI> contends, they believ'd the <HI>Eu&s;ebian Succe&s;&s;ors</HI> to be. When al&s;o, as he farther &s;ays, <Q>It was a Maxime of the An|cients,
<PB N="128" REF="79"> That no Law, or Cu&s;tom of the Church was &s;o &s;acred and inviolable, but they were to be &s;acrific'd to the outward Peace of the Church, when&s;oever nece&s;&s;ity requir'd: And that Nece&s;&s;ity and Convenience were the only Legi&s;lators?</Q> If they had been <HI>Aetian Arians,</HI> all the formalities of Law and Right could not have ju&s;tify'd a Comm<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">nion with 'em: and if they were not, being <HI>Po&s;&s;<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">&s;&s;ors,</HI> by a Supream Secular Coercive Power (upon <HI>Hodian</HI> principles) neither <HI>Law,</HI> nor <HI>Cu&s;tom,</HI> but <HI>Nece&s;&s;ity</HI> and <HI>Convenience,</HI> would legitimate a Communion in oppo&s;ition to them: So why the&s;e Bi&s;hops pleaded <HI>Law</HI> and <HI>Cu&s;tom</HI> at all, if the <HI>Doctor</HI>'s Principles &s;teer'd them, is altogether unaccountable. Some men have been &s;o bold with the Ancients, as to characterize them as weak heads, but hone&s;t meaning men: and <HI>Liberius</HI> and <HI>Ho&s;ius,</HI> &amp;c. did certainly an&s;wer the fir&s;t part of the Character, upon Dr. <HI>H<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">dy</HI>'s &s;uppo&s;ition. For, who, but addle-heads, would have gone into bani&s;hment, and have been ready to &s;uffer whatever el&s;e the Power of the Empire, and their keene&s;t enemies, were cap<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ble to lay upon them, rather than lay a&s;ide tho&s;e Laws, and Canons, and Cu&s;toms, which only oblige &s;o far, as the ob&s;erva|tion of them was con&s;i&s;tent with their own and the Church's <HI>Peace and Tranquility, (i. e.</HI> in plain Engli&s;h, &s;o far as they could ob&s;erve them, and enjoy their ea&s;e and revenues) when they &s;tood alone, and all the World was again&s;t them, as it was again&s;t <HI>Liberius.</HI></P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="4" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. IV.</HEAD>
<P>I Now come in cour&s;e to the Council of <HI>Sirmium;</HI> for I need not &s;tick to affirm, that it was after the Council of <HI>Millan,</HI> &s;ince<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Ep. ad Solitar.</NOTE> <HI>Athana&s;ius,</HI><NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg"><HI>L.</HI> 2. <HI>C.</HI> 26.</NOTE> <HI>Socrates,</HI><NOTE N="&Verbar;" PLACE="marg"><HI>L.</HI> 4. <HI>C.</HI> 5.</NOTE> and <HI>Sozomen</HI> tells us, that <HI>Ho&s;ius</HI> came unwil<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ingly to it, and was there, forc'd, through their tor|tures upon his aged body, he being above an hundred years old, to &s;uc&s;cribe ag<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">in&s;t <HI>Athana&s;ius,</HI> after he had refus'd to do it in the Council of <HI>Millan,</HI> and &s;uffer'd an years Impri&s;onment for it. Now, it was in this Council that our <HI>Eu&s;ebians</HI> began to unmask, and &s;hew them&s;elves abroad, tho' not &s;o openly and barefac'd as they did a little after: but upon the opening of it they di&s;&s;embled their opinion for &s;ome time, as they had formerly done, and &s;eem|ingly contended for the Doctrine of the <HI>Nicene</HI> Faith, with their u&s;ual Zeal, and by new Arguments: and as they drew up three forms of Faith, (whether the two latter were compos'd during
<PB N="129" REF="79"> the time of the Council, or by the &s;ame Bi&s;hops, tho' not by all of them, a little after, I &s;hall not enquire at pre&s;<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">nt) &s;o in the fir&s;t, which was certainly made while the Council &s;a<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters">, they c<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters">+demn'd <HI>Photinus</HI><NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">S<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="3 letters">n. ib<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">d. S<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="4 letters">t. l. <HI>2.</HI> c. <HI>2<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">, 25.</HI> Ath<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="3 letters">. <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 span"> <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters">d. p. <HI>900.</HI> <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="3 letters">ar. de S<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters">a. <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 span">. A <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">a<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">. in <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters">i<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">i<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 word"> p. <HI>23<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">.</HI> <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 word">, Ba&s;il.</NOTE> as a Follower of the Doctrine of <HI>Sabellius</HI> <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 word"> <HI>Paulus Samo&s;atenus,</HI> in that he a&s;&s;erted the <HI>Son</HI> to have no o<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">h r being, but that which he receiv'd in the Womb of the Vi<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">gin, and remov'd him from his Bi&s;hoprick of <HI>Sirmium,</HI> having d<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="4 letters">i<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters">'d five and twenty <HI>Anathemaes</HI> again&s;t his Here&s;ie. But <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters">cau&s;<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> their having done this did not &s;ufficiently vindicate their Orth<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">|doxy, and re&s;cue them from the mark of primigenial <HI>Ari<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="3 letters"></HI> <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="4 letters">ce, tho' they had declar'd the <HI>Son</HI> to have had a being e're he cam<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> into the Womb, they might at the &s;ame time believe that pre-exi&s;ting being to have been created in time, and either, <GAP DESC="foreign"> <HI>of nothing,</HI> or to be, <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>of another &s;ub&s;tance,</HI> and not of the &s;ame Sub&s;tance with the Father, &s;o they were notwith&s;tanding liable to be &s;u&s;pected as <HI>Exoukontians,</HI> or <HI>Heterou&s;ians,</HI> by each commonly thinking per&s;on, they took care to have the ground of the&s;e &s;u&s;pitions remov'd, and their fir&s;t <HI>Anathema</HI> is this; (fo<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> which they had Pre&s;idents in their own <HI>Antiochian</HI> and <HI>Sardinian</HI> Councils, recited above, but I will repeat them)<NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg"><GAP DESC="foreign">.</NOTE> <HI>The Holy Catholick Church doth reject tho&s;e from her communion, who &s;ay, that the Son is made of nothing, or of another &s;ub&s;tance, and not of the Sub&s;tance of God, and that there was a time, or age, in which he was not. And added.</HI><NOTE N="&Verbar;" PLACE="marg"><GAP DESC="foreign">.</NOTE> <HI>If any one doth &s;ay that the Son is made by the will of God, as one of the Creatures, let him be</HI> Ana|thema: In which they come fully up to the Sen&s;e of the <HI>Nicene</HI> Article, only they declin'd the <HI>Homo&Taurus;&s;ian</HI> explication, as they had done all a long before: but neither did they now op|po&s;e it, nor declare the <HI>Homo&Taurus;&s;ian</HI>'s retaining it to be a ju&s;t ground for their &s;eparation from them: neither did the <HI>Homo&Taurus;&s;i|ans</HI> account them Hereticks.</P>
<P>And here we have a ju&s;t occa&s;ion to take farther notice, that it could not be a pretence of Faith in the Incarnation, for which <HI>Con&s;tantius</HI> bani&s;h'd <HI>Ho&s;ius</HI> and <HI>Liberius,</HI> &s;ince they, and the <HI>Eu&s;e|bians,</HI> hitherto outwardly profe&s;s'd and embrac'd one and the &s;ame Faith in it: but it was (as I have above prov'd) becau&s;e tho&s;e two great Bi&s;hop<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> could not betray the Rights of the Church with which <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> had inve&s;ted her, by &s;ubmitting to an <HI>unju&s;t</HI> and <HI>un|canonical Deprivation</HI> and <HI>Succe&s;&s;ion</HI> upon it, tho' they were made, even by a Synod, as when <HI>Athana&s;ius</HI> was depos'd at <HI>Tyre</HI> and <HI>Antioch,</HI> and the <HI>Antiochians</HI> had en<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">h<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">on'd <HI>Gregory</HI> in his
<PB N="138" REF="80"> Chair: much le&s;s, <HI>when by the Secular Arm only,</HI> as when by <HI>Constantius,</HI> in his Palace at <HI>Millan:</HI> Performances of that nature being then alone valid and to be obey'd, when they are done according to tho&s;e Rules which the Church can own, and when her Canons and Laws, for that purpo&s;e, are not therein violated: in the pre&s;ervation of which, as well as of his Faith, each Chri&s;tian Bi&s;hop is to look upon him&s;elf <HI>indi&s;pen&s;ably</HI> concern'd and engag'd: and he is to quit, not only his Palace, (as <HI>Liberius</HI> declar'd) and &s;o much of the practi&s;e of his Mini&s;try, as an exile State will ren|der him uncapable to di&s;charge, but his life, in the a&s;&s;erting and maintaining of them.</P>
<P>But this fir&s;t Creed, and the <HI>Anathemaes</HI> again&s;t <HI>Photinus</HI> which they annex'd to it, were made purely to &s;erve a turn, their Politicks in&s;tructing them to manage their di&s;gui&s;e a while longer: that expre&s;&s;ion which we may find in one of their <HI>Anathemaes,</HI> where the <HI>Son</HI> is &s;aid to admini&s;ter to the <HI>Father</HI> in the Work of the Creation, does a little unveil them, and create a &s;u&s;pition of their de&s;ign, tho' the Ancients have made u&s;e of it very inno|cently. They did not mi&s;s of the craft of mo&s;t Hereticks, in that they denounc'd the&s;e <HI>Anathemas</HI> before they declar'd them&s;elves, it being their u&s;ual artifice to oppo&s;e &s;ome one, or more Here&s;ies with great &s;hew of vehemency, and thereby introduce their own with more ea&s;e and advantage, and &s;o they &s;eldom mi&s;s of their aim, for the many being po&s;&s;e&s;s'd of their Orthodoxy, as they apprehend, in &s;ome points, they can hardly be induc'd to believe that they can be erroneous in any other, but credulou&s;ly receive all that they offer to them. I remember <HI>Vincentius Lirinen&s;is</HI><NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Qui ut uni hae|re&s;i &s;uae aditum patefaceret cun|ctarum haere&s;e. en bla&s;phemias in&s;ectabatur. Adver. haere&s;. c. <HI>16.</HI> vid. So|crat. H. E. l. <HI>2.</HI> c. <HI>25.</HI></NOTE> &s;ays of <HI>Ne&s;torius, That he pur&s;ued the Bla&s;phemies of all Here&s;ies, to make way for his own.</HI> Thus St. <HI>Au&s;tin</HI> tells us,<NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg">De Peccato Origin. contr. Peleg. <HI>23.</HI></NOTE> That when <HI>Pelagius</HI> was &s;ummon'd to <HI>Rome,</HI> to give an account of his Here&s;ie, he offer'd a Book of his Faith, from the Unity of the Godhead and Trinity of Per&s;ons to the Re&s;urrection, expecting that his Or|thodoxy in tho&s;e Articles &s;hould render his error, concerning the Holy Gho&s;t, more pa&s;&s;able. So here, being prepar'd and forti|fied by the &s;ame methods, our <HI>Eu&s;ebians</HI> compo&s;e and offer their &s;econd <HI>Sirmian</HI> Creed, in which, after an unu&s;ual Declaration of their Belief in the Father and the Son, omitting all the other Articles, they peremptorily affirm,<NOTE N="&Verbar;" PLACE="marg">Hilar. de Sy|nod. ibid.</NOTE> <HI>That neither the words</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign"> <HI>or</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign"> <HI>ought to be us'd at all, nor to have any mention or explica|tion made of them for the&s;e rea&s;ons,</HI> viz. <HI>Becau&s;e there are no &s;uch words in the Scriptures; and they exceed mans apprehen&s;ion, and cannot be
<PB N="139" REF="80"> explain'd, according to that of</HI> I&s;aiah,<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>Cap.</HI> 53. <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">.</NOTE> who &s;hall declare his Gene+ration? <HI>that the Father only knows how he begot the</HI> Son, <HI>and the Son only knows how he was begotten of him: that it is manife&s;t to every one that the Father is greater than the Son in Honour, Dignity, and E&s;&s;ence:</HI><NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg"><GAP DESC="foreign">. Socrat. l. <HI>2.</HI> <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">. <HI>1<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">.</HI> S<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">z<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">m. l. <HI>4.</HI></NOTE> <HI>that the Son is neither</HI> con&s;ub&s;tantial, <HI>nor of</HI> like &s;<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">b|&s;tance, <HI>with the Father: that he is to be</HI> anathematiz'd, <HI>who a&s;&s;erts the Son to have no beginning, but the E&s;&s;ence of God produced him, or affirms, That he is not inferior to the Father,</HI> (for we'll &s;uppo&s;e <HI>Sozomen</HI> to have been mi&s;taken, and that the&s;e la&s;t po&s;itions be|long to this &s;econd Creed, if to any; tho' he places them after the fir&s;t) <HI>or, that the Son is not &s;ubject to the Father as all other Crea|tures are.</HI></P>
<P>It was in this Council that the Great <HI>Ho&s;ius</HI> &s;o unhappily fell, and <HI>their Doctrine of new impiety, it having &s;uppurated for &s;ome time, broke forth,</HI> as St. <HI>Hillary</HI> &s;peaks<NOTE N="&Verbar;" PLACE="marg">N<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">v<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">, &amp; ta|men jamdiu &s;up|puratae, impie|tatis doctrina erupuerat. L. de Synod. contr. Arian. p. <HI>236.</HI> Ed. Ba&s;il.</NOTE>. And as he came unwil|lingly to it, being fir&s;t &s;ummon'd by the Emperor<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Socrat. l. <HI>2.</HI> c. <HI>26.</HI> Sozom. l. <HI>2.</HI> c. <HI>5.</HI></NOTE>, and then over-rul'd to &s;it, by the indu&s;try and per&s;wa&s;ion of the <HI>Eu&s;ebian</HI> Bi&s;hops, they promi&s;ing them&s;elves great advantages to their Here&s;ie, which was then upon the retrieval, by the concurrence of his illu&s;trious authority, &s;o he no le&s;s unwillingly &s;ub&s;crib'd to it, compell'd to it by many and unu&s;ual &s;ufferings, notwith&s;tand that he had compos'd the <HI>Nicene</HI> Creed, and &s;tood out &s;o valiant|ly in <HI>Athana&s;ius</HI>'s Cau&s;e. But, (which made &s;ome amends) he willingly repented of it before his death; for tho' &s;ome do con|tend that he &s;ub&s;crib'd to the fir&s;t, and not to the &s;econd <HI>Sirmian</HI> Creed, we dare not contradict the generality of our Hi|&s;torians who have thought otherwi&s;e, e&s;pecially &s;ince the con|trary a&s;&s;ertion is built only on conjectures: and yet <HI>Epiphanius</HI><NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg"><GAP DESC="foreign">. Haere&s;. <HI>73</HI> &sect;. <HI>14.</HI> Ed. Pari&s;ii.</NOTE> &s;eems to imply that he was not fairly dealt with in that af|fair; but the Bi&s;hops in that Synod us'd undue means, and frau|dently produc'd &s;ome Letters of his, by which they repre&s;ented him to have a&s;&s;erted, That the Son was <HI>not like to the Father in all things,</HI> hoping thereby to gain advantage to their Cau&s;e, and overthrow the Church of God.</P>
<P>But I may not omit a farther account which <HI>Athana&s;ius</HI> gives of <HI>Ho&s;ius,</HI><NOTE N="&Verbar;" PLACE="marg">Ep. ad Solita<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> vitam ag<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="5 letters">. p. <HI>807.8<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters">.</HI></NOTE> viz. <HI>That tho' after a long bani&s;hment at</HI> Sirmium, <HI>and being worn out with following evils, he communicated with</HI> Valens <HI>and</HI> Ur&s;acius, <HI>yet he did not &s;ub&s;cribe again&s;t</HI> Athana&s;ius: <HI>neither did he think the former a l<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ght thing, but being about to die, as by te&s;tament, he declar'd their force, and condemn'd the</HI> Arian <HI>Here&s;ie, and forbad all men to approve and receive it.</HI> I &s;hall not do the great Cau&s;e of
<PB N="132" REF="81"> the Son of God, nor the excellent Bi&s;hop (tho' he once unhappily fell) &s;o much injury, as to infer from thence, that he &s;et a le&s;s value upon that Article of Faith, than he did upon Church Uni|on, under the Church's lawful Governours, in that he rejected the former, but retain'd the latter, for his repentance &s;hew'd his ju&s;t &s;en&s;e of his recidivation, in oppo&s;ing the former, the doing of which is to be attributed to his frailty, and not his choice, but it mu&s;t be hence allow'd, that what pro&s;pect &s;oever, under that di&s;mal juncture, he had of the former, he did not look upon the latter as an indifferent thing: nor may we think that his &s;ub|&s;cription again&s;t <HI>Athana&s;ius</HI> was le&s;s requir'd of him by his ene|mies, the <HI>Eu&s;ebians,</HI> nor le&s;s acceptable to them, nor that it would have been le&s;s beneficial to him&s;elf, than <HI>Liberius</HI>'s was a little after. But, <HI>&s;ince</HI> it was &s;o order'd by a <HI>Superior hand (which di&s;|po&s;eth every thing, &s;o as to bring advantage out of it)</HI> that <HI>Ho&s;ius</HI> &s;ub|&s;crib'd to the <HI>Aetian</HI> Article, in which the Son is a&s;&s;erted to be a Creature, but did not &s;ub&s;cribe again&s;t <HI>Athana&s;ius</HI><NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>Vid. Baron.</HI> 357. <HI>Num.</HI> 41, 42.</NOTE>; But <HI>Liberius</HI> &s;ub&s;crib'd again&s;t <HI>Athana&s;ius,</HI> and ente<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">'d into communion with the Oriental Bi&s;hops, and did not &s;ub&s;cribe to the afore&s;aid Ar|ticle, but only to the fir&s;t <HI>Sirmian</HI> Creed; even <HI>Felix</HI> (who was <HI>Liberius</HI>'s intruder) was not an <HI>Aetian Arian,</HI> but had con&s;tantly adher'd to the <HI>Nicene</HI> Faith; and no other rea&s;on &s;eems to be given why the <HI>Chri&s;tians</HI> in <HI>Rome</HI> boggl'd to receive <HI>Liberius,</HI> for a while, upon his return, but becau&s;e he had communicated with the <HI>Arians,</HI> and &s;ub&s;crib'd to <HI>Athana&s;ius</HI>'s Deprivation, or which is the &s;ame thing, comply'd with a fal&s;e &s;ucce&s;&s;ion, and made no &s;atisfaction for it; &s;ince even Dr. <HI>Hody acknowledges,</HI><NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg">P. <HI>44.</HI> in fine pag.</NOTE> that the <HI>Felicians</HI> in <HI>Rome</HI> kept off from <HI>Liberius</HI> for &s;ome time, and I would fain have him give any other rea&s;on for it, but that they were not &s;atisfied in the legality of his re-e&s;tabli&s;hment, but thought <HI>Felix</HI> their lawful Bi&s;hop upon his po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion; and <HI>Libe|rius</HI> the Intruder, <HI>i. e.</HI> a Schi&s;matick, though he was not an Heretick: The&s;e things being (I &s;ay) thus manife&s;t and apparent to all men, if they amount not in them&s;elves to a rule, they are great and convincing exemplifications of the di&s;tinct natures of Here&s;ie and Schi&s;m, which two, like other Specificks, have di|&s;tinct operations and effects. Church Union, in a ju&s;t &s;ucce&s;|&s;ion, and Articles of Faith, or <HI>res per&s;onarum,</HI> and <HI>res fidei,</HI> things belonging to Per&s;ons, and things belonging to Faith, were under <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">eparate con&s;iderations in tho&s;e days, in the opinion of both Par|ti<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">s, with which we are now concern'd, and &s;urely, upon a
<PB N="133" REF="81"> common Principle in Government. Doth not our Hi&s;torian tell us<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">The<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">dor. l. <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">. c. <HI>17.</HI></NOTE> that they all believ'd they were oblig'd to have <HI>one Bi&s;hop,</HI> as they had but <HI>one God, one Chri&s;t?</HI> And it will hence al&s;o follow, that Schi&s;m and Here&s;ie were not lookt upon as &s;ub&s;tance and accident, and the former thought to have no being but as &s;ubject in the latter, and as a meer dependant upon it: or that, as the <HI>Doctor</HI> &s;tates it<NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg">P. <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">.</NOTE>, there is no rule for Union, but in re|lation to the Articles; and the even <HI>unju&s;t</HI> and <HI>uncannonical De|privation,</HI> and <HI>Succe&s;&s;or</HI> upon it, are to be receiv'd, &s;uppo&s;ing the <HI>Succe&s;&s;or be not an Heretick.</HI> But, if &s;o, how comes it to be <HI>Ho&s;ius</HI>'s virtue (for &s;urely <HI>Athana&s;ius</HI>'s records it to be one) that he did not &s;ub&s;cribe to <HI>Athana&s;ius</HI>'s condemnation, as well as to the <HI>Aetian</HI> Article, and that he was not wholly an Apo&s;tate? I will not ask why he did not &s;ub&s;cribe to the fal&s;e condemna|tion, as well as the fal&s;e Article, becau&s;e in &s;ub&s;cribing to the latter, he mu&s;t have &s;ub&s;crib'd to the former upon the <HI>Doctor</HI>'s &s;uppo&s;ition, the accident, or &s;hadow, changing, or cea&s;ing as the &s;ub&s;tance doth, and it is either black or white, &s;ower or &s;weet, or no<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">h<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ng, in corre&s;pondence with it. Neither may it be pleaded, that <HI>Ho&s;ius</HI> was then de&s;irous, being above an hundred years old, and under great oppre&s;&s;ions, <HI>which make a wi&s;e man mad,</HI> &s;ince he had a &s;en&s;e and grace to repent: Or farther, that the <HI>Eu&s;e|bians</HI> were of the <HI>Doctor</HI>'s opinion, and that they did not in&s;i&s;t up|on his &s;ub&s;cription again&s;t <HI>Athana&s;ius,</HI> having gain'd his &s;ub&s;crip|tion to the Article, as not thinking it valuable in it &s;elf, &s;ince I have &s;hew'd the contrary from our adver&s;aries <HI>own</HI> precedeing practice with <HI>Ho&s;ius</HI> and <HI>Liberius.</HI></P>
<P>Be&s;ides, what was <HI>Liberius</HI>'s crime? Or wherein did his fall con&s;i&s;t, when after a &s;trong trial, and an undaunted courage, and great con&s;tancy for &s;ome time to the contrary, he &s;ub&s;crib'd at length again&s;t <HI>Athana&s;ius,</HI> and communicated with the <HI>Arians,</HI> but retain'd the right Faith, if to own a fal&s;e and de&s;ert a true Union, was not a fault, tho' the Faith at the &s;ame time is invio|lated? For if the <HI>Doctor</HI> does think <HI>Liberius</HI>'s de&s;erting <HI>Athana&s;ius,</HI> and communicating with the <HI>Arians,</HI> was not to de&s;ert a true, and comply with a fal&s;e Union, nor a fault, all truly Catholick <HI>Chri&s;tians</HI> have thought it to be one. Or why did the Catholicks refu&s;e to communicate with <HI>Liberius</HI> upon his &s;ub&s;cription? For we mu&s;t own they did refu&s;e upon his return by <HI>Con&s;tantius</HI>'s o<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">der, untill he made &s;atisfaction for his recidivation, and its &s;candal, becau&s;e the Church Principles oblig'd them to that re|fu&s;al till his retractation: tho' our Hi&s;tories fail in giving u<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> a
<PB N="142" REF="82"> particular account of it: but nothing is more &s;ure, than that they did not own <HI>Felix</HI> to be their Bi&s;hop, and communicate with him, tho' he was not an <HI>Arian,</HI> (for that he was not one all confe&s;s, and even Dr. <HI>Hody</HI> too) <HI>nor otherwi&s;e exceptionable</HI> as to Doctrine: Now for this, no other rea&s;on can be given, neither is any other pretended, but that he &s;ub&s;crib'd again&s;t <HI>Athana&s;ius,</HI> and communicated with tho&s;e that had al&s;o &s;ub&s;crib'd again&s;t him, and was placed in a full Chair, contrary to the Church Laws, by the <HI>&s;ecular arm.</HI> Or, why did, even <HI>Felix</HI>'s Di&s;ciples, at lea&s;t &s;o many of them as receiv'd the right Faith, together with him, refu&s;e <HI>Liberius</HI> when he was re&s;tor'd by the Emperor, if they were of the opinion the <HI>Baroccian Manu&s;cript</HI> repre&s;ents its dege|nerate <HI>Greek</HI> Bi&s;hops to have been, and believ'd that the Prince could legitimate an <HI>unju&s;t</HI> and <HI>uncannonical</HI> Succe&s;&s;ion, &s;o be the Bi&s;hop po&s;&s;e&s;s'd by him was not an <HI>Arian,</HI> or otherways He|retical, &s;ince it is certain that <HI>Liberius</HI> was not?</P>
<P>In &s;hort, a Bi&s;hop that turns <HI>Arian,</HI> and openly profe&s;&s;es him|&s;elf to be &s;uch, may not be receiv'd, tho' he does not formally, and in &s;o many words renounce Communion with the Colledge of Prie&s;ts, or Catholick Bi&s;hops of Chri&s;tendom. And &s;uch was <HI>Ho&s;ius</HI>'s ca&s;e, upon his fall. Again, a Bi&s;hop that is not an <HI>Arian,</HI> nor otherways Heretical, but renounces the Catholick Communion, and &s;eparates from the Epi&s;copal Colledge, may not, either be communicated with, and this was the ca&s;e of <HI>Liberius,</HI> upon his &s;ub&s;cription again&s;t <HI>Athana&s;ius,</HI> and of <HI>Felix,</HI> upon his a&s;&s;uming <HI>Liberius</HI>'s Chair, when he had been exil'd by <HI>Con&s;tantius:</HI> but I &s;hall have a farther opportunity to con&s;ider <HI>Liberius</HI> and <HI>Felix</HI> anon: I have here but toucht upon them (to|gether with <HI>Ho&s;ius</HI>) that I might take occa&s;ion (for the omi&s;&s;ion of which I could not pardon my &s;elf) to expo&s;e that crude im|perfect Plea which Dr. <HI>Hody</HI> frequently makes, in vindication of his mo&s;t fal&s;e a&s;&s;ertion, [viz. <HI>That unju&s;t po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion legitimates a Bi|&s;hop, if he be not an Heretick</HI>] as from the Practi&s;e of the Church of God, when he tells us; <HI>that &s;uch and &s;uch Bi&s;hops, when they were plac'd in Sees by the &s;ecular arm, upon unlawful Deprivations, were ejected, but it was becau&s;e they were Arians,</HI> and that <HI>their un|ju&s;t po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion was not a competent ground for their ejection,</HI> &s;ince it is &s;o very plain, not only upon Church Practi&s;e, but upon Church Principles, that, as they were <HI>Arians,</HI> &s;o if they were al&s;o Schi&s;mati|cal Po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ors, as their <HI>Ariani&s;m,</HI> &s;o their Schi&s;m upon &s;uch po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion, did di&s;able them, and put a ju&s;t bar to the Peoples receiving,
<PB N="143" REF="82"> and communicating with them: And the <HI>Doctor</HI> ought to have prov'd, but has not attempted it, <HI>that their Ariani&s;m, or other Here&s;ie, could alone do it, but their Schi&s;m could not.</HI> And yet he in&s;ults all along upon the Plea as unan&s;werable, and makes it over and over, even to nau&s;eou&s;ne&s;s.</P>
<P>A little after the Compo&s;ure of the Second Creed at <HI>Sirmium</HI> the <HI>Oriental</HI> Bi&s;hops met, fir&s;t at <HI>Ancyra,</HI> and then at <HI>Sirmium,</HI> and there corrected its Here&s;ies and Bla&s;phemies: and tho' <HI>Sozo|men</HI><NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>L.</HI> 4. <HI>c.</HI> 5.</NOTE> has again mi&s;taken when he &s;ays, That they omitted the word <HI>Sub&s;tance,</HI> and declar'd that it ought not to be nam'd, be|cau&s;e it is not found in the Scriptures, and a&s;&s;erted the <HI>Son</HI> to be like the Father, as in the Second <HI>Sirmian</HI> Creed; yet St. <HI>Hilary</HI>'s account<NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg">De Synod. p. <HI>227.</HI> Ed. Ba&s;il.</NOTE> is otherwi&s;e; and we there find, that they not only mention the word <HI>Sub&s;tance,</HI> but declare the <HI>Son</HI> to be of the <HI>&s;ame Sub&s;tance</HI> with the <HI>Father,</HI> and <HI>like him in all things:</HI> and to this Creed <HI>Constantius</HI> &s;ub&s;crib'd; and <HI>Valens,</HI> who was afterwards Emperor, did the &s;ame by his means, but unwillingly; be|cau&s;e he could not dige&s;t that part of it, which made the Son <HI>like the Father in all things,</HI> as we find in <HI>Epiphanius.</HI><NOTE N="&Verbar;" PLACE="marg">Here&s;. <HI>37.</HI> &sect;. <HI>25.</HI> Ed. Pari&s;.</NOTE> And he farther &s;ays<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">&sect;. 22. <HI>ibid.</HI></NOTE>, That it was afterwards &s;o accomodated between the <HI>Semi-Arians</HI> and the <HI>Arians,</HI> that the word <HI>Substance,</HI> in the <HI>Ancyran,</HI> and third <HI>Sirmian</HI> Creed was left out, (the <HI>Arians</HI> be|ing not able to bear with it) &s;o both con&s;ented, that the Son &s;hould be a&s;&s;erted <HI>like the Father in all things:</HI> and the former were very well pleas'd, for they concluded, that if <HI>the Son was like the Father in all things,</HI> he was al&s;o like him in <HI>Sub&s;tance,</HI> and in his <HI>Eternal Nature:</HI> and the latter were well &s;atisfy'd for the pre&s;ent, becau&s;e they had e&s;cap'd the word <HI>Sub&s;tance;</HI> and they &s;oon after improv'd it to the advantage of their de&s;ign'd Here&s;ie, or rather to the re&s;toring of it, as it was &s;tated and maintain'd by them in the Council of <HI>Nicea,</HI> till tho&s;e Fathers there ca&s;t it out. And the <HI>Acacians</HI> (who made a Sect which aro&s;e pre&s;ently upon it) openly declar'd <HI>the Son to be like the Father in his will only,</HI> in the Council of <HI>Seleucia</HI><NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg"><GAP DESC="foreign">. Socrat. L. <HI>2.</HI> c. <HI>32.</HI></NOTE>, which renders him a Creature with a witne&s;s. For, if &s;o, every truly regenerated Man is as much God, as the Son is. And, I remember, <HI>Garnerius,</HI> the learned <HI>Je&s;uite</HI> relates it, That <HI>Theodorus,</HI> Bi&s;hop of <HI>Mop&s;ve&s;tia,</HI> us'd to reply, when <HI>Chri&s;t</HI>'s divinity was urg'd upon him<NOTE N="&Verbar;" PLACE="marg">Annot. in Marium mercatorem.</NOTE>; <HI>po&s;&s;um &amp; ego Deus e&s;&s;e &s;i volo: and I can be a God if I will:</HI> and very truly upon his tacking the fore|mention'd
<PB N="136" REF="83"> <HI>Acaciani&s;m</HI> to the <HI>Pelagain</HI> Principle, of which la&s;t he is there repre&s;ented to have been an a&s;&s;ertor, if he was not the Author, but tho' the <HI>Ancyran</HI> Bi&s;hops came up to the <HI>Eu&s;ebians</HI> in the Council of <HI>Antioch,</HI> and the fir&s;t <HI>Sirmian</HI> Creed, and a&s;|&s;erted with them the eternal Generation; they differ'd from them in that they <HI>anathematiz'd</HI> the <HI>Homo&Taurus;&s;ian</HI> explication, and <HI>con&s;ub|&s;tantality</HI> of the <HI>Son</HI> and the <HI>Father,</HI> as we find it in <HI>Epiphani|us:</HI><NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Ibid &s;upr. &sect;. <HI>11.</HI></NOTE> and St. <HI>Hilary</HI> owns as much too,<NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg">De Synod.</NOTE> but he &s;ays it is not in every Copy of the Council. And it may not be ami&s;s, if I here &s;tay a little, and give an account of the &s;everal Sects, and their di&s;criminations, which ro&s;e upon <HI>Arius</HI>'s <HI>&s;tarting</HI> the con|trover&s;ie with <HI>Alexander</HI> concerning the Generation of the Son: for I call them all Sects alike, tho' I place the <HI>Homo&Taurus;&s;ians</HI> a|mong them, &s;ince I find the term applied to the Chri&s;tians, as well as to the &s;everal Heathen Wor&s;hips, by our Ancient <HI>Apologi&s;ts.</HI> And,</P>
<P N="1">1. The <HI>Homo&Taurus;&s;ians,</HI> or <HI>Athana&s;ians,</HI> (as they may be properly call'd) a&s;&s;ert, the Father and the Son to have one and the &s;ame Sub&s;tance, Nature, and E&s;&s;ence, which they expre&s;s and explicate by the word <HI>Con&s;ubstantial,</HI> as in the Council of <HI>Ni|cea:</HI> tho' I do not find in the Progre&s;s of the Controver&s;ie they accounted tho&s;e that wav'd the word <HI>Con&s;ub&s;tantial,</HI> [<GAP DESC="foreign">] in their explication of the eternal Generation, to be Heretical, if it was not done upon &s;ome vi&s;ible de&s;ign for evil, but communi|cated with them, if they were otherwi&s;e unexceptionable: And accordingly <HI>Athana&s;ius</HI><NOTE N="&Verbar;" PLACE="marg">L. de Synod. Arim. <HI>&amp;c.</HI> p. <HI>915.</HI></NOTE> has openly declar'd, <HI>That, as to tho&s;e who receive all the Writings of the Synod of</HI> Nicea, <HI>but make a doubt concerning</HI> Con&s;ub&s;tantial, <GAP DESC="foreign">, we are not to proceed again&s;t them as enemies, <HI>neither do we contradict them as</HI> Ariomanites, <HI>or enemies to tho&s;e Fathers, but we di&s;cour&s;e them as Brethren, holding the &s;ame opinion, and differing only in words.</HI></P>
<P N="2">2. The <HI>Eu&s;ebians,</HI> who came next, a&s;&s;erted the &s;ame in every re&s;pect, (though not with the &s;ame integrity) and did not condemn the word <HI>Con&s;ub&s;tantial,</HI> but thought it the &s;afer way to omit it, as what might occa&s;ion di&s;putes and &s;trife, and &s;o they left it out of their Creed, as in the Council of <HI>Antioch.</HI> St. <HI>Hilary</HI><NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Dominum no&s;trum Je&s;um Chri|&s;tum Deum &amp; Dei filium a patre, nec honoris confe&s;&s;ione, nec virtu|tis pote&s;tate, nec &s;ub&s;tantiae di|ver&s;itate, nec intervallo temporis &s;eparari. L. de Synod.</NOTE> has fully expre&s;s'd the Catholicks and their Sen&s;e in the&s;e words, in the Margin.</P>
<P N="3"><PB N="137" REF="83">3. The <HI>Semi Arians</HI> (&s;o &s;ome call them) were tho&s;e, who retein'd th<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> word <HI>Sub&s;tance,</HI> and a&s;&s;erted the Son to be of the &s;ame <HI>E&s;&s;<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">nce</HI> with <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">he Father, and <HI>to be like him in all things,</HI> but th<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">y left out the word <HI>Con&s;ub&s;tantial,</HI> and not only &s;o, but con|demn'd it, and declar'd that it ought not to be us'd. I ju&s;t n<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">w intimated this out of <HI>Epiphanius</HI><NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><GAP DESC="foreign">. <HI>Sect.</HI> 10, 11.</NOTE>, who gives us a large ac|count out of an Ep<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">&s;tle, which the <HI>P&s;eudo-Anciran</HI> Synod wrote, &s;hewing how they a&s;&s;erted t<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">e Eternal Generation, and that <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> had the &s;ame Sub&s;tance with the <HI>Father,</HI> and Anathema|tiz'd all that oppos'd them, and yet this is the conclu&s;ion of tho&s;e a&s;&s;ertions, <HI>viz.</HI><NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><GAP DESC="foreign">. <HI>Sect.</HI> 10, 11.</NOTE> <HI>If any one who a&s;&s;erts the Father to be in Power and E&s;&s;ence the Father of the Son, &s;hall &s;ay that the Son is</HI> Con&s;ub&s;tantial, <HI>and</HI> Coe&s;&s;ential <HI>with the Father, let him be an</HI> Anathema. The Bi&s;hops in the &s;econd Council of <HI>Sirmium</HI> were the fir&s;t who denied the <HI>Eternal</HI> and <HI>Identical Nature</HI> of the Father and the Son, and that the Son was <HI>like the Father in all things,</HI> from the end of the <HI>Nicene</HI> Council to that time: And the&s;e in the <HI>P&s;eudo Ancyran</HI> Council were the fir&s;t that ever a&s;&s;ert|ed the &s;ame <HI>Eternal</HI> and <HI>Indentical Nature</HI> of the Son and the Fa|ther; and that <HI>the Son was like the Father in all things,</HI> but deny'd the <HI>Con&s;ub&s;tantiality</HI> of the Father and the Son, and anathematiz'd tho&s;e that a&s;&s;erted and &s;ub&s;crib'd to it, and erected a Sect upon it, who&s;e Members are generally call'd <HI>Semi Arians</HI> by Eccle&s;ia&s;tical Writers: But <HI>Epiphanius</HI> (who, if I mi&s;take not, is the fir&s;t that mentions it) does not &s;eem to apply the title to them, as a Cha|racteri&s;tick, when he manife&s;tly makes them a d<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">&s;tinct Sect, and calls them <HI>Semi Arians,</HI> by their principles and di&s;ti<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ct the&s;es. And tho' the &s;ucceeding Church &s;et a &s;eparating mark upon them, and not unju&s;tly, it arguin&s;t an ill &s;pirit: And, &s;urely, it is of a very ill con&s;equence, when men, not on<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">y cen&s;ure, but reject the Church's Explication of Faith, in order to peace, up|on an emerging controver&s;ie, e&s;pecially when it is altogether innocent, and, which is more, conteins the true Doctrine of the Article: For when the Son is &s;aid to be of the <HI>&s;ame Sub&s;tance</HI> with the Father, and like him in all things, and of no <HI><GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ther Sub&s;tance,</HI> is he not <HI>Con&s;ub&s;tantial</HI> with him? And accordi<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">gly, St. <HI>Hilary</HI> &s;ays, <HI>when I had heard of neither I un|der&s;tood both,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Testor D<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">minum Coeli atque terrae me cum neutrum audivi&s;&s;em, &s;emper tamen utrumque <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">e<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">&s;i&s;&s;e, quod per h<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">moi<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">&s;ion ho|m<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters">&s;ion oporteret inte<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">l<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters">it: id e&s;t nihil &s;i|mile &s;ibi &s;ecundum na<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">uram e&s;&s;<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> po&s;&s;e, ni&s;i quod e&s;&s;et ex eadem natura. Regeneratus pridem, &amp; in Epi&s;copatu aliquanti&s;per manens, Fidam Nicaenam uunquam ni&s;i exulaturus audivi, &s;ed <HI>homo&Taurus;&s;ii</HI> &amp; ho|mo&Taurus;&s;ii intelligentiam Evangelia &amp; Apo&s;toli intimaverunt. L. de Synod. in fine.</NOTE> <HI>and that</HI> Homoou&s;ios <HI>ought to be understood by</HI> Homoiou&s;ios, <HI>becau&s;e nothing can be l<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ke to him according to nature, but that which is the &s;ame nature. Being long ago re|generated,
<PB N="138" REF="84"> and remaining for &s;ome time in the Epi&s;copate, I never heard of the</HI> Nicene <HI>Faith till I was to be bani&s;ht; but the Go&s;pels and the Apo&s;tles intimated unto me the &s;en&s;e of</HI> Ho|moou&s;ios <HI>and</HI> Homoiou&s;ios. But notwith|&s;tanding, neither the chain of con&s;equences, nor the authority of the Council did pre|vail with the&s;e men. (which la&s;t St. <HI>Hilary</HI><NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Si quid ad interpretationem addendum e&s;t, communi<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">er con&s;ulamus. ibid.</NOTE> thinks ought to prevail) Though &s;ome<NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg">Baron. an. <HI>358.</HI> num. <HI>16.</HI> Natal. Alex. Hi&s;t. Eccl. Secul. <HI>4.</HI> vol. <HI>1.</HI> p. <HI>97.</HI> Et di&s;&s;ertat. de ii&s;dem. vol. <HI>2.</HI></NOTE> have thought that they were not plac'd among the heretical Profe&s;&s;ors, nor condemn'd as &s;uch, but receiv'd into communion.</P>
<P N="4">4. And la&s;tly, the <HI>Ex&Taurus;kontians,</HI> or <HI>Arians</HI> properly, rejected and condemn'd <HI>Sub&s;tance</HI> and <HI>Con&s;ub&s;tantial;</HI> and a&s;&s;erted, that the <HI>Son was destitute of his Father E&s;&s;ence, and to have receiv'd his Ori|gine with the Creatures out of nothing;</HI> as St. <HI>Hilary</HI><NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">E&s;&s;entiae inops paternae, acce|pi&s;&s;e cum crea|turis originem de non extanti|bus. Hilar. de Synod.</NOTE>. And they dif|fer from the followers of <HI>Photinus, Paulus Samo&s;atenus, &amp;c.</HI> and our modern <HI>Socinians,</HI> who a&s;&s;ert <HI>him</HI> to receive his beginning in the Womb of the <HI>Virgin,</HI> but they agree with them, in that both a&s;&s;ert his excellency beyond other Creatures to con&s;i&s;t only in his more regular will and Godly qualities, than any of them had; as al&s;o, in his larger Prophetick gifts, and gratuitous endowments of edfication. And hence the Sect of <HI>Anomeans</HI> aro&s;e, from <HI>Aetius, Eudoxius, Eunomius,</HI> and others.</P>
<P>Having given the Characteri&s;ticks of the&s;e &s;everal Sects, I go on in any propos'd method. And the next, which comes before us, is the <HI>&s;econd Creed,</HI> which was compos'd at <HI>Sirmium:</HI> It was offer'd in the Council of <HI>Ariminum</HI> (which follows not long after the third Creed of <HI>Sirmium</HI>) by <HI>Valens,</HI><NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg">Socrat. l. <HI>2.</HI> c. <HI>29.</HI> Soz. l. <HI>4.</HI> c. <HI>16, 17, 18.</HI> Baron. an. <HI>359.</HI> num. <HI>3.</HI> Athan. de Synod p. <HI>876.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Ur&s;acius,</HI> and their A&s;&s;ociates, and its confirmation requir'd, with a nullity of all other Creeds which had been before: But the <HI>Western</HI> Bi&s;hops would by no means hear of it, or any &s;uch thing; but, on the contrary, confirm'd and receiv'd the <HI>Nicene</HI> Council in all things: Al&s;o they wrote their Synodical Epi&s;tle to <HI>Con&s;tantius,</HI> in which they requir'd his Concurrence and Ratification; as likewi&s;e, in their abdication of <HI>Valens, Ur&s;acius, Germanicus, Auxentius &amp;c.</HI> which was done at the &s;ame time, in that Council, becau&s;e they in&s;i&s;ted on the &s;econd <HI>Sirmian</HI> Creed, and refus'd to receive and obey their Determination and Sentence. Thus the true Faith of the Eternal Generation was re&s;tor'd and ratified in the Church of God, by no le&s;s than four hundred Catholick Bi|&s;hops.</P>
<PB N="139" REF="84">
<P>But alas! how &s;uddenly was this face of things alter'd? What through the unwearied indu&s;try of <HI>Valens</HI> and <HI>Ur&s;acius,</HI> (which is u&s;ual with Hereticks) and the apo&s;tacy (to the a&s;toni&s;hment of Chri&s;tendom in all after Ages) of the &s;ame Bi&s;hops; the im|portunity of tho&s;e two re&s;tle&s;s men &s;o far prevail'd upon <HI>Con&s;tan|tius,</HI> partly becau&s;e the Bi&s;hops broke<NOTE N="&Verbar;" PLACE="marg">Socr. &amp; Soz. ibid.</NOTE> up the Synod of <HI>Ari|minum,</HI> and went home, without his leave, but chiefly for the effecting their old de&s;ign, that he commi&s;&s;ion'd them, as <HI>Pleni|potentiaries,</HI> with an unlimited Power to govern the <HI>We&s;tern</HI> Churches according to their di&s;cretion: And they ejected all tho&s;e Bi&s;hops that refus'd to &s;ub&s;cribe to the &s;econd <HI>Sirmian</HI> Creed, and placed others in their Chairs: And thus po&s;&s;ibly too by wheedling,<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Theod. H. E. l. <HI>2.</HI> c. <HI>21.</HI> Soz. l. <HI>4.</HI> c. <HI>18.</HI></NOTE> and pleas of uniting the <HI>Ea&s;tern</HI> and <HI>We&s;tern</HI> Churches, but mo&s;tly by<NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg"><GAP DESC="foreign">. Socr. l. <HI>4.</HI> c. <HI>11.</HI></NOTE> terrors, and a worldly fear of lo&s;ing their Bi&s;hopricks, they &s;oon effected their purpo&s;e. So the words <HI>Con&s;ubstantial</HI> and <HI>Sub&s;tance</HI> were condemn'd and ca&s;t out, and the <HI>Ex&Taurus;kontian</HI> Faith &s;ub&s;crib'd, in a Council which they had to that end procur'd in <HI>Thrace</HI><NOTE N="&Verbar;" PLACE="marg">The<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">d. ibid. &amp;c. <HI>19, 20.</HI></NOTE>: And it was done by the far greater number of the Bi&s;hops that had receiv'd and &s;ub&s;crib'd to the Catholick truths in the Council of <HI>Ariminum,</HI> and there delibe|rately re&s;olv'd never to depart from them: as their <HI>Synodical Epi&s;tle to</HI> Con&s;tantius <HI>make appear.</HI></P>
<P>I mu&s;t &s;tay a little, and make a few remarks upon &s;ome pa&s;&s;ages in the foregoing paragraph, if it be only to oblige Doctor <HI>Hody:</HI> And I &s;hould not pardon my &s;elf, if I did not give notice of the pregnant in&s;tance it affords him <HI>of the</HI> &s;eeular Ma|gi&s;trates practice in depriving Bi&s;hops by his own Authority, <HI>and of</HI> its recognizance by &s;ome hundreds of Bi&s;hops, (<HI>e&s;pecially,</HI> &s;ince he was &s;o unhappy as to leave it out of his laborious Collection to that purpo&s;e) in that <HI>Con&s;tantius</HI> hath &s;o &s;ignally deriv'd his Power upon <HI>Valens</HI> and <HI>Ur&s;acius,</HI> and thereby enabl'd them to govern all the <HI>Western</HI> Churches according to their di&s;cretion, and eject every Bi&s;hop that did not come up to his terms, and place Succe&s;&s;ors upon them, and a whole and great Council (&s;ome few only excepted) complied with them in it. But the &s;ame kindne&s;s to him does likewi&s;e direct me to let him know, that this Power was a&s;&s;um'd by the Empire, and thence deriv'd upon <HI>Valens</HI> and <HI>Ur&s;acius,</HI> and entertain'd by them, on purpo&s;e to break in pieces the unity of the Church, and overthrow its Faith in the Eternal Generation, and that the far more nume|rous part, which &s;ub&s;crib'd did it again&s;t their knowledg and
<PB N="140" REF="85"> con&s;cience, and former &s;ub&s;criptions, compell'd to it by horrors and fears; that they afterwards repented<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Theod. H. E. Comment Synod. de Concil. Arim. &amp; Athan<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">&s;. Ep de eodem. l. <HI>2.</HI> c. <HI>22, 23.</HI> Athan. Ep. de Synod. p. <HI>877.</HI></NOTE> and made &s;atisfa|ction with retractions and tears; and to give him an account how there was a <HI>remnant</HI> at the &s;ame time, which neither &s;ub&s;crib'd to their Faith, nor &s;ubmitted to their <HI>unju&s;t</HI> and <HI>un|canonical deprivations,</HI> nor own'd their <HI>Succe&s;&s;ors,</HI> notwi<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">h&s;tanding the <HI>Sovereign Coercive Power</HI> and <HI>irre&s;i&s;tible Party,</HI> neither <HI>&s;mall</HI> nor <HI>tumultuous,</HI> by which it was effected, but di&s;own'd their Authority, in relation to their fal&s;e Bi&s;hops, as well as to their fal&s;e Faith, and went apart,<NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg">Athana&s;. ibid. Baron a<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">. <HI>359.</HI> num. <HI>59.</HI></NOTE> to a &s;mall Vi<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">lage, &s;cituated on the Sea &s;hore betwix <HI>Ariminum</HI> and <HI>Pi&s;aurus,</HI> and made their Re|ligious Conventions in it, tho' the Per&s;ecution did not pe<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">mit them to continue there long; and the Village was therefore call'd <HI>Catholica,</HI> and afterwards retain'd its name. St. <HI>Athana|&s;ius</HI> &s;ays a monument was erected there to perpetuate their me|mo<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">y.</P>
<P>And &s;urely the<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">e is no one artifice a Prince can u&s;e, that more immediately and directly, contributes to his de&s;ign for overthrowing the Faith, and a Church's whole Con&s;titution, than his a&s;&s;uming a Right, as congenious to his Earthly Power, to remove <HI>Christ</HI>'s Bi&s;hops, and &s;upreme Officers, and &s;urrogate others in thei<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> Sees at his plea&s;ure, and his executing it accordingly. The late <HI>Editor</HI> of the <HI>Baroccian Manu&s;cript</HI> could not have repre|&s;ented the degenerate &s;tate of the <HI>Greek</HI> Church, otherwi&s;e too well know within tho&s;e Ages to which it is there confin'd, more lively than he has done in the publication of it, &s;ince this Para|dox, (for &s;o it is to the <HI>Catholick Church</HI>) is there a&s;&s;erted and maintain'd: <HI>viz. That the Civil Power hath an Authority</HI> arbi|trarily <HI>to remove a lawful Bi&s;hop from his See, and constitute his Succe&s;&s;or.</HI> I have &s;aid, <HI>Arbitrarily:</HI> At which exceptions will be made, becau&s;e it is added by me, and that <HI>Manu&s;cript</HI> hath it not. But &s;ince. Here&s;y is the only bar which it puts in the ca&s;e, or, (as Doctor <HI>Hody</HI> has alter'd it) unle&s;s <HI>that Succe&s;&s;or be not &s;uch whom no good Catholick can refu&s;e;</HI> he that t<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">uly <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">hinks will find, that this &s;ecular Power, in removing a Bi&s;hop, and making his Succe&s;&s;or, can be none, if it be not <HI>Arbitrary:</HI> For, if the Church hath a Power, (what doth the <HI>Doctor</HI> &s;eem to &s;ay le&s;s, in his own re&s;triction, than that every private Chri&s;tian hath it?) to refu&s;e the Prince's Bi&s;hop, becau&s;e he is not &s;uch as &s;he requires, but par|ticularly becau&s;e of his Here&s;y, (of which I have always thought the Church to be Judge) then the Prince hath no
<PB N="141" REF="85"> power to make a Bi&s;hop, and the Church <HI>alone</HI> can do it: Can|not every Believer oppo&s;e him in it, if as a good Catholick, he &s;eem to have a ju&s;t cau&s;e to <HI>refu&s;e</HI> him? But of the Church be not Judg Here&s;y, it being the <HI>Greeks</HI> only bar to the Princes Arbitrarine&s;s, Here&s;y can be none, becau&s;e if the Prince thinks his <HI>Po&s;&s;e&s;&s;or</HI> is not an Heretick, tho' he is one, there is no Judg to over rule him, and nothing but his own Arbitrarine&s;s can give him rules, in an emerging ca&s;e: Or, indeed, at all.</P>
<P>Our <HI>Eu&s;ebians</HI> were thoroughly &s;en&s;ible of this advantage their cau&s;e would receive by their removing the Chatholick Bi&s;hops, which they partly did, by their fal&s;e Syn<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters">s, and partly by the Regal Power, &s;eparate to the Eccle&s;ia&s;tical, the, condemnation of the <HI>Arian</HI> Here&s;y, in the Council of <HI>Nicea</HI> &s;uppre&s;&s;ing it for the pre&s;ent: (them&s;elves, and even their Ma|&s;ter <HI>Arius,</HI> &s;eemingly at lea&s;t, con&s;enting, and approving the Council) And when they could not hope to retrieve the He|re&s;y directly, (for they retain'd the &s;ame affection for it which they had at fir&s;t) the&s;e &s;ubtile, as well as ince&s;&s;antly active and unwearied per&s;ons, made it their bu&s;ine&s;s to have &s;everal of the principal Bi&s;hops depos'd as criminals, who&s;e arguments and indu&s;try had procur'd its <HI>ejection</HI> in the Council: And thus they gain'd the Court &s;o far on their &s;ide, that by its Potency and terrors <HI>Eu&s;tathius</HI> of <HI>Antioch</HI> was depos'd by a Synod at <HI>Antioch, Athana&s;ius</HI> of <HI>Alexandria</HI> was likewi&s;e remov'd, fir&s;t in a Council of <HI>Tyre,</HI> and then in another at <HI>Antioch,</HI> and <HI>Gregory</HI> was made a Succe&s;&s;or to him; <HI>Paul</HI> of <HI>Con&s;tantinople</HI> was abdi|cated, with &s;everal others: And if <HI>Con&s;tantine</HI> the Father had not been aware of their deceit, and his two Sons <HI>Con&s;tantine</HI> and <HI>Constans</HI> had not approv'd them&s;elves true friends to the Catho|licks, they might have <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ut of more. But all this while they did not meddle with the <HI>Nicene</HI> Feith, but profe&s;s'd to believe and maintain it, with the &s;ame love and con&s;tancy the Catho|licks did. Did they not make the&s;e Bi&s;hops abdication their only vi&s;ible mark for &s;ome time? This will further appear in that, when they found their party le&s;s numerous and unable to vote with the <HI>Athana&s;ians</HI> in the Council of <HI>Sardica,</HI> but &s;aw that <HI>Athana&s;ius</HI> and othe<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">s would be re&s;tor'd and confirm'd there, they either excepted again&s;t the place and refu&s;ed to come there, or quitted it, and the <HI>Nicene</HI> Article was not their concern. The proceedings of the <HI>P&s;eudo-Sardicans,</HI> who met in the <HI>Ea&s;t</HI> within a while after, and profe&s;s'd the <HI>Eternal Generation,</HI> but carried
<PB N="142" REF="86"> on the fir&s;t de&s;ign, and depos'd <HI>Julius</HI> of <HI>Rome, Gaudentius, Maximinus,</HI> and others, upon pretences of mi&s;demeanours, which were not of Faith, are no le&s;s evidence of it. They took the &s;ame cour&s;e in the Council of <HI>Millane,</HI> and immediately broke up when they found they could not have their purpo&s;es upon <HI>Athana&s;ius</HI>'s per&s;on. <HI>Diony&s;ius</HI><NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Theod. H. E. l. <HI>2.</HI> c. <HI>15.</HI> in initio.</NOTE> of <HI>Italy, Paulinus</HI> of <HI>France, Lucifer</HI> of <HI>Sardinia</HI> and <HI>Eu&s;ebius</HI> of <HI>Vercellis,</HI> were there abdicated by <HI>Con|&s;tantius</HI>'s &s;ecular hand, and <HI>Ho&s;ius</HI> and <HI>Liberius,</HI> not long after: Of all which I have already given an account. It is true, <HI>Con|&s;tantius</HI> order'd that another method &s;hould be taken in the Council of <HI>Ariminum,</HI> and, by his Letters, directed the Bi|&s;hops, that they &s;hould fir&s;t determine matters of Faith, and then the cau&s;es of the Bi&s;hops,<NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg">Soz. l <HI>4.</HI> c. <HI>6.</HI> in initio.</NOTE> who were abdicated or exil'd, &s;hould be con&s;ider'd, they finding that their party had gain'd ground in the Council of <HI>Sirmium,</HI> in who&s;e &s;econd Creed the words <HI>Con&s;ubstantial</HI> and <HI>Sub&s;tance</HI> are rejected, and the <HI>Son</HI> a&s;&s;erted to be a Creature: But they found them&s;elves deceiv'd upon <HI>Valens</HI> and <HI>Ur&s;acius</HI>'s offering that Creed there, and requiring its reception: Upon this they return'd to their old methodes, and <HI>Con&s;tantius</HI> made <HI>Valens</HI> and <HI>Ur&s;acius</HI> his <HI>Vicar-Generals,</HI> with an indefinite latitude, who, by turning out &s;ome Bi&s;hops, and terrifying others, threatning their abdication, gain'd their cau&s;e effectually, and <HI>Exoukontiani&s;m</HI> was replanted, and continu'd by the &s;ame method, for a good while, in the Church.</P>
<P>And the Children of Light were not le&s;s wi&s;e in their Gene|rations than the&s;e Children of darkne&s;s, but knew full well, and &s;aw thorough the&s;e depths of Sathan, who&s;e main de&s;ign was that the Faith might be di&s;troy'd: As <HI>Paulus</HI> and <HI>Athana&s;ius</HI> give the rea&s;on of their own<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><GAP DESC="foreign">. S<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">cr. l. <HI>2.</HI> c. <HI>16.</HI></NOTE> abdication by the <HI>Eu&s;ebians. (Athana|&s;ius</HI> &s;ays it over and over again in his Works) and thereupon they &s;olicite the Empire for the ejected Bi&s;hops re&s;toration: The &s;ame rea&s;on we find to to be given by <HI>Diony&s;ius</HI> of <HI>Alba, Eu&s;ebius</HI> of <HI>Vercellis, Paulinus</HI> of <HI>Trevers, Rhodanus</HI> and <HI>Lucifer,</HI> in the Synod of <HI>Millan:</HI> All of them remon|&s;trate again&s;t the&s;e abdications,<NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg"><GAP DESC="foreign">.</NOTE> as the leading &s;tep to the de&s;truction of the <HI>Ni|cene</HI> Faith.<NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg">Theod. l. <HI>2.</HI> c. <HI>15.</HI></NOTE> The&s;e <HI>Eu&s;ebians</HI> pretended no more at fir&s;t but to remove <HI>Athana&s;ius,</HI> and they brought plau&s;ible rea&s;ons for it, as, that he was an ill commonwealths man,<NOTE N="&Verbar;" PLACE="marg">Soz. l. <HI>4.</HI> c. <HI>8.</HI></NOTE>
<PB N="143" REF="86"> that he violated the laws, was an enemy to the Emperor's per&s;on and government, of which with more I have already given an ac|count: But, <GAP DESC="foreign">, as <HI>Sozomen</HI> well ob&s;erv'd, this was not their ultimate aim, neither did their mi&s;chief &s;top here: The Orthodox Faith was &s;truck at thorough <HI>Athana&s;ius</HI>'s, and the other &s;uffering Bi&s;hop's &s;ides, and wi&s;e men &s;aw it. And tho' the <HI>Eu&s;ebians</HI> had then in a great mea&s;ure conceal'd them&s;elves, &s;o as their <HI>Ariani&s;m</HI> was not openly made known, yet the Orthodox believ'd them&s;elves equally oblig'd to oppo&s;e their depo&s;itions of Bi&s;hops, as to a&s;&s;ert and defend the true Faith.</P>
<P>Nor do I believe that any one, who thinks at all, can be &s;o loo&s;e in his thoughts as not to apprehend, that the &s;ame Power, which has an indefie&s;able right to remove the Magi&s;trates of a Corporation upon its own terms, and place Succe&s;&s;ors in their room, and oblige the Society to receive them, may not, and will not, by often changing, and the advantage of man's corrupt heart, overthrow the Laws, and alter the Con&s;titutions of that Corpo|ration, when ever it &s;hall think fit. <HI>Constantius</HI> and his <HI>Eu&s;ebians</HI> practice are a &s;ad, but true in&s;tance of it, who by the&s;e means incorporated <HI>Exoukontiani&s;m</HI> into the Church: A full improve|ment of Doctor <HI>Hody</HI>'s, and his <HI>Greek</HI>'s principle would have kept it there for ever, if the Empire had &s;o pleas'd. But as <HI>A|remnant</HI> thought it their duty to oppo&s;e them for that one rea&s;on, and to adhere their proper Bi&s;hops, &s;o they pre&s;erv'd the true Faith in oppo&s;ition to them: And all good Chri&s;tians and Bi&s;hops ought to do the &s;ame.</P>
<P>I cannot but be &s;orry, that our <HI>Briti&s;h</HI> I&s;land hath lately given us two in&s;tances; the one of which comes &s;hort of the&s;e Orthodox Bi&s;hops practice, and the other exemplifies the Hereticks practice and its &s;ad event, but, I hope, without their de&s;tructive inten|tions. We have had a Synod, in which our Divines acted learnedly and zealou&s;ly in the behalf of the outward Con&s;titu|tions of our Church, but without their Metropolitan, and others of our Bi&s;hops, whom the &s;ecular Arm alone withheld from them, and, which is wor&s;e, without de&s;iring them, or enquir|ing after the rea&s;on of their ab&s;ence: Herein they came &s;hort of the Orthodox Clergy in the ca&s;e of <HI>Athana&s;ius,</HI> and others, particularly in the Synods of <HI>Sardica</HI> and <HI>Millane.</HI> We have had al&s;o our <HI>Metropolitan,</HI> and more of the Colledge, depriv'd (Doctor <HI>Hody</HI> &s;ays <HI>unju&s;tly</HI> and <HI>uncanonically</HI>) by the &s;ecular Arm; and
<PB N="144" REF="87"> within a while after the whole Order aboli&s;h'd in a con&s;idera|ble part of our I&s;land, and not only the Di&s;cipline, but the Doctrine of our Church di&s;enfranchis'd, and pe&s;tilent Here&s;ies brought in, which are very noxious at pre&s;ent, and may be no le&s;s de&s;tructive to the Faith, than <HI>Ariani&s;m</HI> once was: Neither have the remaining part of the College, <HI>as yet,</HI> attempted their Order's re&s;tauration, nor put up one Petition in its behalf to tho&s;e powers by which it was aboli&s;h'd, in whom they may be &s;uppos'd to have an intere&s;t for effecting its Re&s;tauration: Herein they al&s;o go contrary to the ancient Rules and Pra|ctice of the Chri&s;tian Incorporation, by which the Governors &s;tand engag'd, and have &s;till endeavour'd, to retrieve and con|tinue each others Rights in the Fraternity, and the Order it &s;elf.</P>
<P>But to return where we left of.</P>
<P>A little after the Council of <HI>Ariminum,</HI> if not during the time of its &s;itting, the Council of <HI>Seleucia</HI> was call'd: In which the <HI>Eu&s;ebians</HI> carried it, (tho' the <HI>Arians</HI> had outvoted them be|fore) and obtain'd to have the Creed of the Council of <HI>Antioch</HI> &s;ub&s;c<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ib'd to, but for what rea&s;ons, I cannot tell. The Creed is &s;et down at Large by<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Adver. Haere&s;. l. <HI>3.</HI> Tom. <HI>1</HI> haere&s;. <HI>73</HI> &s;ect. <HI>25.</HI> Edict Pari&s;.</NOTE> <HI>Epiphanius.</HI> And tho' <HI>Acacius</HI> &s;o order'd it, that he brought another Creed into the Council, he mi&s;s'd of his de&s;ign in it: But upon his appeal to <HI>Con&s;tantius,</HI> who was then at <HI>Con&s;tantinople,</HI> he procur'd a Synod in that City, in which the <HI>Ariminum</HI> Faith was read and receiv'd, with &s;ome alterations for the wor&s;e: And, as they a&s;&s;ert'd the <HI>Son</HI> to be like the <HI>Father according to the Scriptures;</HI> &s;o they anathematiz'd all tho&s;e that &s;hould mention the word <HI>Sub&s;tance</HI> in their Creeds. And they moreover decree'd<NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg"><GAP DESC="foreign">.</NOTE> <HI>That the &s;ub&s;i&s;tence of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Gho&s;t ought not to be named.</HI> Of all which we have a particular account in our Church Hi&s;torians.<NOTE N="&Verbar;" PLACE="marg"><HI>Socr. l.</HI> 2. <HI>c.</HI> 31, 32. <HI>Theod. l</HI> 2. <HI>c.</HI> 27. <HI>Soz. l.</HI> 4. <HI>c.</HI> 21, 22, 23.</NOTE> And we are not to wonder at the procedeings of this Convention, if we con&s;ider St. <HI>Hilary</HI>'s character of it<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Orientalium in Selencio Syno|do, ubi repperi tartum bla&s;phe|miarum, quan|tum Con&s;tantio placebat. Hil. de Synodis.</NOTE>. E&s;pecially &s;ince he tells us, that <HI>Constantius</HI>'s will was the rule of their proceedings.</P>
<P>And now <HI>Ariani&s;m</HI> came barefaced upon the &s;tage of the World, when it had been di&s;guis'd and underhand manag'd from the time of the <HI>Nicene</HI> Council to this day.</P>
<P><HI>Before the Lord</HI> Chri&s;t <HI>was denyed in the dark and in corners,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Antea enim in ob&s;curo atque in angulis Dominus Cori&s;tus Dei e&s;&s;e &s;ecundum na|tu<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">am Filius negabatur, &amp; E&s;&s;entiae inops P<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">t<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters">nae, accepi&s;&s;e cum Creaturis originem de non extantibus praeaicabatur: At vero nunc public&egrave;, authoritatis profe&s;&s;ione Hae|re&s;is prorumpens, id quod antea &s;u<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">tim mu&s;&s;itabat, nunc victrix gloriatur. Quibus enim antea cuniculis in Catholicam Eccle|&s;iam non tentavit erumpere. Ibid. de Synod. contr. Arian. p. <HI>240.</HI></NOTE> <HI>to be the</HI> Son <HI>of</HI> God <HI>according to Nature, and declar'd de&s;titute of his</HI> Father<HI>'s E&s;&s;ence, and to have receiv'd his beginning out of nothing with the Creatures:
<PB N="145" REF="87"> But now the Here&s;y breaking out publickly, and with the profe&s;&s;ion of authority, that which was talk'd privately, among them&s;elves and by &s;tealth, glory's a Conquere&s;s. For by what mines did it not before attempt to creep into the Catholick Church?</HI> As St. <HI>Hilary</HI> &s;peaks. It is become the Religion of the Empi<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">e, and <HI>Con&s;tantius</HI> protects none that &s;hall dare to oppo&s;e, that will not embrace, it. Be|fore this time <HI>Valens</HI> and <HI>Ur&s;acius,</HI> and &s;ome few more Bi&s;hops did now and then a&s;&s;ert it, but their endeavours, like untimely births, ended in nothing, and they repented and &s;ubmitted to the Church's Cen&s;ures, accordingly as their principles directed them, upon a failure of &s;ucce&s;s: But <HI>Eunomius, Eudoxius, Aetius, Euzoius, Macedonius &amp;c.</HI> are now &s;eated in their Chairs, and the que&s;tion is not, whether <HI>Con&s;ub&s;tantial</HI> may not be better omitted in our Creed, when the <HI>Eternal Generation</HI> is a&s;&s;erted? (which was all that the <HI>Eu&s;ebians,</HI> at the fir&s;t, de&s;ir'd; the <HI>Antiochian</HI> Creed was fram'd by them, to &s;atisfie the world that they de&s;ired no more,) Nor is it now only contended, that the words, <HI>Con&s;ub|&s;tantial</HI> and <HI>Sub&s;tance,</HI> ought not to be us'd, becau&s;e they are not found in the Sc iptures, as in the &s;econd <HI>Sirmian</HI> Creed: But the <HI>Anom<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ans</HI> and <HI>Exoukontians</HI> give the Laws and Rules of Faith in the <HI>Son</HI> of <HI>God,</HI> and he is to be recogniz'd as a Creature, differing only from the re&s;t of the &s;ons of men, in that he was made before the world, and endued with graces beyond the m<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">&s;t accompli&s;h'd and perfect o<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> them. Accordingly <HI>Athana&s;ius</HI><NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Orat. <HI>1</HI> &amp; <HI>3.</HI> ad Arian. p. <HI>286. 296. 385.</HI> &amp; Orat. <HI>4.</HI> p. <HI>468.</HI></NOTE> repre&s;ents the&s;e men to be no better than <HI>Heathens,</HI> in the divine Wor&s;hip, which they perform to him, as giving it to the crea|ture, in&s;tead of the Creator, which they equal with him. The heavy per&s;ecutions carry'd on before, were upon the account of <HI>Athana&s;ius</HI>'s depo&s;ition, and &s;ome other abdications which attended it, the Church of God refu&s;ing to own and &s;ubmit to them, becau&s;e they were <HI>unjust</HI> and <HI>uncanonical,</HI> and to receive Succe&s;&s;ors upon them: And the <HI>Eu&s;ebians</HI> policy directed them to begin here, as a direct, but remote &s;tep to their main end; that was the introducing the &s;ame Here&s;ie, which was not then ri<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">e, and requir'd concealment: But now the child being come to the birth, and their &s;trength having enabled them to bring forth, there needs no other c<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ime, than to profe&s;s the <HI>Con&s;ub|stantiality</HI> and <HI>one Substance</HI> of the Father and Son. And, as<NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg"><GAP DESC="foreign">. <HI>l.</HI> 2. <HI>c.</HI> 30.</NOTE> <HI>So|crates</HI> &s;p<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters">ks, <HI>The Law of the Emperor, and the violence of</HI> Macedo|nius <HI>commanded, that the Churches which determin'd for the</HI> Ho|moou&s;ian
<PB N="146" REF="88"> <HI>Faith &s;hould &s;uffer exile:</HI> Here the per&s;ecution was founded; and it raged no le&s;s furiou&s;ly than tho&s;e of former and after ages. <HI>The name of</HI> Sub&s;tance <HI>is aboli&s;h'd, and the damnation of the</HI> Nicene <HI>Faith is unanimou&s;ly a&s;&s;ented to, when even the whole world groan'd, and beheld, with a&s;toni&s;hment, it &s;elf to be</HI> Arian, as St.<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">&V;&s;iae nomen a|bolitum e&s;t, &amp; Ni<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">enae fidei damnatio con|clamata, quando &amp; t<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">tus orbis ingemuit, &amp; A|rianum &s;e e&s;&s;e miratu, e&s;t Adver&s;. Lucifer.</NOTE> <HI>Jerom,</HI> upon the &s;ame occa&s;ion. And tho' the per&s;ecution abated in the Reign of <HI>Julian,</HI> by the advantage of his indul|gence, it return'd under <HI>Valens,</HI> and continu'd raging, until God's mercy to his Church took him away, and &s;eated <HI>Gratian</HI> in the Throne, who immediately upon it<NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg">Vid. Socr. l <HI>5.</HI> c. <HI>2.</HI> Theod. l. <HI>5.</HI> c. <HI>2.</HI> Soz l. <HI>5.</HI> c. <HI>2.</HI></NOTE> call'd home the ba|ni&s;ht Bi&s;hops, and re&s;tor'd them to their Sees, and a liberty for the exerci&s;e of their functions.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="5" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. V.</HEAD>
<P>HAving &s;hew'd (if I do not mi&s;take) from undoubted mat|ter of fact, that after the Doctrine of <HI>one Sub&s;tance</HI> was receiv'd and ratified in the Council of <HI>Nicea,</HI> as that Faith which had remain'd from the beginning, and the Prophets and Evangeli&s;ts had preach'd, and after the <HI>Arian</HI> Here&s;ie had been confuted and extingui&s;h'd by<NOTE N="&Verbar;" PLACE="marg"><GAP DESC="foreign">. Synod. Ari|min. Ep. Synodal, ad Con&s;tantium, apud Socrat. H. Ecl. <HI>2.</HI> c. <HI>29.</HI></NOTE> tho&s;e Fathers, <HI>Ariani&s;m</HI> was not retriev'd in any one in&s;tance, unle&s;s by three or four Bi&s;hops now and then, upon &s;ome emergencies; (who were immediately &s;ilenced, and repented, and retracted it) but, tho' <HI>&s;uppurated</HI> in St. <HI>Hilary</HI>'s expre&s;&s;ion abovemention'd by me, it continu'd almo&s;t a con|ceal'd thing neer thirty years, <HI>i. e.</HI> from the end of the <HI>Nicene</HI> Council, to the Council of <HI>Sirmium,</HI> the common computation making it little le&s;s, and the &s;econd <HI>Sirmian</HI> Creed made the fir&s;t e&s;&s;ay for its publication; but the Council of <HI>Ancyra,</HI> and third <HI>Sirmian</HI> Creed &s;oon after corrected the mi&s;take of the &s;econd, and then above four hundred Bi&s;hops <HI>anathematiz'd</HI> it in the Council of <HI>Ariminum:</HI> Tho the majority, by far, of tho&s;e Fathers at <HI>Ari|minum</HI> were &s;o unhappy, to a prodigy, as to retrieve and ree&s;ta|bli&s;h it in the Church, through the threats and terrors of the Empire, when they had pawn'd their Faith and Souls to the contrary but a little before: This was the time when it was fir&s;t openly profe&s;s'd, and made the Law of the Empire upon the <HI>Ariminum</HI> Fathers &s;upplicating <HI>Constantius,</HI> that he would receive it into his protection, and embody it in his Kingdom. 'Tis with a re&s;pect to the <HI>Anathema</HI> in the <HI>Ariminum</HI> Synod, that <HI>Athana&s;ius</HI><NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><GAP DESC="foreign">. Ep. ad So|litar. vitam. a|agentes. p. <HI>830.</HI></NOTE> tells us, Con&s;tantius <HI>ob&s;erving</HI> Ariani&s;m <HI>to be hated of all men, forced &s;everal of the Bi&s;hops to &s;ub&s;cribe unto it, that the few of his
<PB N="147" REF="88"> own party might be augmented, and he thereby be enabled to over|throw the truth.</HI> Having al&s;o &s;hew'd, that the Catholicks, during the foremention'd interval, contended directly and im|mediately, if not <HI>only,</HI> again&s;t the depo&s;ition of <HI>Athana&s;ius</HI> and other Bi&s;hops, and their unrighteous <HI>Succe&s;&s;ors,</HI> as <HI>unjustly</HI> and <HI>un|canonically</HI> done, by the malice and fraud of the <HI>Eu&s;ebians,</HI> who part|ly wheedled, and partly over rul'd, the Empire by their fal&s;e &s;ugge|&s;tions and notorious calumnies, &s;o as it became in&s;trumental to their wi&s;h'd purpo&s;e, and was the mo&s;t effectual means for the recovery of their e&s;pous'd naughty Here&s;ie, to e&s;tabli&s;h it in the World. It has been made appear too, that <HI>Athana&s;ius</HI> and his Party &s;uffer'd principally upon this account, daring no more to &s;ubmit to an <HI>unju&s;t Deprivation,</HI> and <HI>fal&s;e Succe&s;&s;ion,</HI> than to a fal&s;e Faith; I &s;hould now proceed to &s;omething that is behind, but I think fit fir&s;t to annex the following con&s;ectaries, conteining a few u&s;e|ful ob&s;ervations and inferences from the whole, which each eye, that hath perus'd it, mu&s;t have ob&s;erv'd. As,</P>
<P N="1">1. The <GAP DESC="foreign">, or ignorance of the plain Hi&s;tory and matter of fact, within our interval or prefix'd <HI>Epoche,</HI> is notoriou&s;ly evi|dent in tho&s;e, who tell it abroad, that <HI>Athana&s;ius,</HI> and the then Catholick Bi&s;hops, and Believers, did refu&s;e to &s;ubmit to, and receive, the <HI>Eu&s;ebians Abdications</HI> and <HI>Succe&s;&s;ions,</HI> bec<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">u&s;e the <HI>Suc|ce&s;&s;ors</HI> were <HI>Arians.</HI> The&s;e holy Bi&s;hops &s;agacity, and &s;uperadded graces, with which, by the mercy and favour of the heavens, we are to believe them to have been abundantly in&s;tucted, mu&s;t be allow'd to have warn'd and guarded them again&s;t the natural and de|&s;tructive con&s;equences of the <HI>Eu&s;ebians</HI> proceedings of that na|ture, which &s;till made way for the introducing what Here&s;ies the Managers of them de&s;ign'd to infe&s;t the Church of God with: And we have a great deal of rea&s;on to believe, that they were e&s;pecially aware of their Adver&s;aries aim,<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Vid. Secrat. l. <HI>1.</HI> c. <HI>20.</HI> in initio.</NOTE> thereby to re|&s;tore <HI>Ariani&s;m,</HI> they having &s;ub&s;crib'd through force, and not &s;incerely, to its condemnation in the Council of <HI>Nicea:</HI> but yet, &s;ince they openly &s;ub&s;crib'd the <HI>Nicene</HI> Faith in the Council of <HI>Nicea,</HI> and had not renounced and recall'd their &s;ub&s;cription by any overt act; but, on the contrary, upon all occa&s;ions, in their Synods and Creeds, either openly declar'd for its Doctrine, or palliated it, but made no open remon&s;trance again&s;t it, and neither the <HI>Eu&s;ebians</HI> nor <HI>Semi Arians</HI> were<NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg">Augu&s;t. Ep. <HI>174.</HI></NOTE> accounted here|tical; &s;ince them&s;elves did not think they were di&s;tingui&s;h'd from the Catholicks by tho&s;e Creeds which they made, or any other outward performances, within our &s;et compa&s;s of time,
<PB N="148" REF="89"> and therefore made new ones, upon their declaring them&s;elves to be <HI>Arians,</HI> which was done after the afore&s;aid <HI>Epoche:</HI> Is it not very odd and incon&s;i&s;tent to think and &s;ay, that they were then <HI>Arians,</HI> and that their right was not own'd; nor their po|te&s;tative judicial acts of Government receiv'd as competent, and valid, meerly becau&s;e of Here&s;ie? Can a more favourable cen|&s;ure be pa&s;s'd upon tho&s;e that maintain this, than that they were ignorant of the &s;tate of per&s;ons and things within that time? Or can the Catholicks, who are &s;uppos'd to have refus'd them, be accounted &s;o unthinking and imprudent as to do it upon that account, &s;ince their adver&s;aries might &s;o very ea&s;ily clear them&s;elves of the a&s;per&s;ion, and invalidate their rea&s;on, from their own conce&s;&s;ions? For, what was more ready for their reply, then this, <HI>viz.</HI> That their own mouths had acquit|ted them of it? Might not the&s;e <HI>Eu&s;ebians</HI> have loaded them back with the guilt of Schi&s;m, and Di&s;obedience, upon their non-&s;ubmi&s;&s;ion to their <HI>Succe&s;&s;ors,</HI> if their pre&s;ent <HI>Ariani&s;m</HI> had been the only thing they had to plead in their own defence? If therefore the <HI>Eu&s;ebians unju&s;t</HI> and <HI>uncanonical Deprivations</HI> and <HI>Po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ions</HI> did not put the bar, <HI>Athana&s;ius</HI> and his Party will hardly be found ju&s;tifiable in not &s;ubmitting to them, &s;ince it did not appear, but that <HI>in all other re&s;pects they were &s;uch who&s;e com|munion no good Catholick could refu&s;e.</HI></P>
<P N="2">2. If we admit the <HI>Eu&s;ebians</HI> to have been profe&s;s'd <HI>Arians,</HI> within our <HI>Epoche,</HI> or di&s;tance of time, how does it follow, that the <HI>Abdications</HI> and <HI>Succe&s;&s;ions,</HI> which they then created, were rejected by the <HI>Athana&s;ians</HI> as incompetent and invalid, for that rea&s;on only? Might there not have been &s;ocial Rea&s;ons that equally oblig'd them to it? It is evident that there were others, and that they were reputed competent, becau&s;e the <HI>unju&s;tne&s;s</HI> and <HI>uncanonicalne&s;s</HI> of the <HI>Abdications</HI> and <HI>Succe&s;&s;ions,</HI> were mo&s;tly, if not only, pleaded, as the rea&s;ons why they were not receiv'd: I do not remember that the <HI>Succe&s;&s;or</HI>'s <HI>Ariani&s;m</HI> is once directly in&s;i&s;ted on, as its rea&s;on: but the undue <HI>Abdication</HI> is very fre|quently: and the Catholicks refu&s;ing to receive the <HI>Succe&s;&s;or</HI> up|on the account of the latter, is that which occa&s;ions their ad|ver&s;aries objection again&s;t them. Be&s;ides, may not he that is an <HI>Arian</HI> be a Schi&s;matick too? And is not Schi&s;m, in bringing in a fal&s;e Succe&s;&s;ion, as much to be &s;eparated from, and as ju&s;t a ground for it, when it is joyn'd with <HI>Ariani&s;m,</HI> as it was when the <HI>Novatians</HI> and <HI>Donati&s;ts</HI> made it, who were not Arians, nor
<PB N="149" REF="89"> otherways Heretical? St. <HI>Paul</HI><NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 11.</NOTE> was ea&s;ily inclinable to believe, hat there were <HI>Schi&s;ms</HI> in the Church of <HI>Corinth,</HI> becau&s;e <HI>there mu&s;t be Here&s;ies in it;</HI> but he was far enough from thinking that Schi&s;m lo&s;t its guilt by being accompanied with Here&s;ie, and that the Believers ought not therefore to avoid, nor have any regard to the Schi&s;m; but that it ceas'd, for that rea&s;on. Bi&s;hops were profe&s;&s;edly <HI>Arians,</HI> in the days of <HI>Valens</HI> the Emperor, and unju&s;tly po&s;&s;e&s;s'd of mo&s;t of the Sees of <HI>Chri&s;tendom,</HI> but the Catholicks were not le&s;s careful and con&s;cientious to keep up the rightful Succe&s;&s;ion, than the rightful Doctrine, in oppo&s;ition to them, and the malignity of the Schi&s;m oblig'd them to it, as much as the malignity of the Here&s;ie; otherwi&s;e the Church was mi&s;taken before, when &s;he rejected the <HI>Novatians</HI> and <HI>Donatists.</HI> But I have already<NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg"><HI>C.</HI> 1. <HI>Sect.</HI> 3.</NOTE> &s;hew'd the weakne&s;s of Dr. <HI>Hody</HI>'s Arguings at this rate, and &s;hall not farther expo&s;e them here. And yet I cannot forbear to add this following recantation, which <HI>Ar&s;enius</HI> made, (who is &s;til'd <HI>Epi&s;copus Hy&s;pelitarum,</HI> and was the man, who&s;e hand the <HI>Eu&s;ebians</HI> pretended to have been cut off by <HI>Athana&s;ius,</HI> they bringing him into the open Court to evidence it) upon di&s;covery of the Plot, which tho&s;e Children of darkne&s;s had laid deep for the de&s;truction of <HI>Athana&s;ius,</HI> and his repentance and reception into the Church: The Recantation ought to be laid up in the Churches <HI>Archives,</HI> as a pre&s;ident in the &s;ame, or like ca&s;e: but I here recite it, as an undeniable in|&s;tance, That it was one part, at lea&s;t, of Bi&s;hop <HI>Ar&s;enius</HI>'s guilt, in that he not only concurr'd with the <HI>Eu&s;ebians</HI> mo&s;t impious device, for the taking away <HI>Athana&s;ius</HI>'s life, but in that he like|wi&s;e joyn'd with them in their mo&s;t abominable Schi&s;m, by breaking the lawful Succe&s;&s;ion, in turning <HI>Athana&s;ius</HI> wrongfully out of his See, and bringing in a fal&s;e Bi&s;hop, as a <HI>Second,</HI> into his Chair. This is the Sin which he here condoles and recants for by name, and principally, if not &s;olely, repent; him of, promi&s;ing to have no more communion with them in their Schi&s;m, but to return to his lawful Metropolitan, as the Laws of the Church require: here is not one word of his joyning with them in the <HI>Arian</HI> Here&s;ie, nor any thing like a retractation on that account: they did not indeed then profe&s;s it, but it's contrary: neither may we think the Church would have receiv'd <HI>Ar&s;enius</HI> without his retracting it, if he had concurr'd with the <HI>Eu&s;ebians</HI> in an open profe&s;&s;ion of it. The Recantation it &s;elf is among <HI>Athana&s;ius</HI>'s works<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><GAP DESC="foreign">. Athana&s;. Apol. P. <HI>786.</HI></NOTE>, which I will recite in the <HI>Greek,</HI> and tran&s;late into <HI>Engli&s;h.</HI></P>
<PB N="150" REF="90">
<P><HI>We embracing Peace and Unity with the Catholick Church, in which thou do&s;t pre&s;ide by the grace of God, and having re|&s;olv'd on a full choice to be &s;ubject to the old Eccle&s;ia&s;tical Law, write unto thee, mo&s;t be|loved Bi&s;hop, and promi&s;e, in the name of the Lord, that we will not, for the</HI> future, <HI>com|municate with Schi&s;maticks, who break the Peace of the Catholick Church, whether they be Bi&s;hops, Presbyters, or Deacons, nor unite with them in a Synod, nor &s;end them</HI> paci|fick <HI>Letters, nor receive any of them, nor make any determination concerning Bi&s;hops, or any other common Eccle&s;ia&s;tical Dogma, without the judgment of thee our Metropoli|tan Bi&s;hop: but we will give place to all the Canons which have been made and receiv'd according to the example of the Bi&s;hops,</HI> Ammonianus, Tyrannus, Plupanus, <HI>&amp;c.</HI></P>
<P>If our Adver&s;aries will in&s;i&s;t, and &s;ay, That <HI>Ar&s;enius</HI> has here omitted his mo&s;t foul crime, not only in contriving <HI>Athana&s;ius</HI>'s death, together with the other <HI>Eu&s;ebians,</HI> but in acting &s;o emi|nent and &s;ingular a part in order to it, as he has pa&s;&s;ed his con|cern in the <HI>Aria<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"></HI> Here&s;ie over in &s;ilence; and as it is &s;ure that he was guilty of the fir&s;t, tho' it is not here-mention'd, nor its re|pentance declar'd, &s;o he might be guilty of the Second, and have al&s;o repented of it. I thus an&s;wer, That as his pa&s;&s;ing o're the immoralities of the fir&s;t nature, cannot be an argument that he did not commit them, the contrary being manife&s;t: neither may we believe that the Church did admit him without a repentance for them, tho' it is not here mention'd: So we do not expect that his &s;ilence, as to the Here&s;ie, &s;hould be lookt upon any more than a probable argument that he was not guil|ty of it, &s;ince he might be, notwith&s;tanding. But nothing is more plain than that he was guilty of t<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">e Schi&s;m, in being a Party in breaking the rightful Succe&s;&s;ion, and that the Church did not admit him without a &s;evere repentance, and publick recantation for it: And, if this his recantation for the Schi&s;m was not here tran&s;mitted to po&s;terity, &s;ingly and alone, by de&s;ign, and the accidents of time, or carele&s;&s;ne&s;s of a Copier, had not deprived us of his Recantation for the other: we may &s;afely conclude, the judgment of the then Church, but of <HI>Athana&s;ius</HI> in particular, was,
<PB N="151" REF="90"> That it behov'd all Chri&s;tians to be &s;atisfied of his recantation of the Schi&s;m, and that the common Chri&s;tianity was concern'd to have it done, for the one as much as for the other.</P>
<P N="3">3. It farther appears, as clear as the Sun at noon-day, That the rejecting a Bi&s;hop lawfully po&s;&s;e&s;s'd of his Chair, and the re|ceiving an uncanonical Succe&s;&s;or upon him, was not accounted an <HI>indifferent thing</HI> in <HI>Athana&s;ius</HI>'s time; and that the Church had other Rules in tho&s;e ca&s;es, be&s;ides its pre&s;ent outward advan|tage, tho' a Sovereign Coercive Power had <HI>Abdicated</HI> the Right, and <HI>po&s;&s;e&s;s'd</HI> the wrong; &s;ince the <HI>Athana&s;ians</HI> did not &s;ubmit to <HI>Con&s;tantius</HI> under &s;uch emergencies, but believ'd them&s;elves obliged by the Law of God, to maintain the lawful and canoni|cal Succe&s;&s;ions, and refu&s;e the contrary; as to maintain the true Faith, and refu&s;e that which is Heretical. Even the <HI>Eu&s;ebians</HI> would not receive <HI>Athana&s;ius,</HI> and &s;ome other Bi&s;hops, tho' the <HI>Sardican</HI> Synod, with the a&s;&s;ent of <HI>Con&s;tantius</HI> and <HI>Con&s;tans,</HI> and what authority they could give to that action, had re-e&s;tabli&s;ht them in their Sees, becau&s;e they &s;uppos'd their own precedeing Church-Cen&s;ures, by which they had been depos'd, were ju&s;t and canonical, and a &s;upervening authority incompetent to re&s;cind them, tho' it were the Empires own: and not only &s;o, but they call'd a Synod in the <HI>Ea&s;t,</HI> and confirm'd tho&s;e Cen&s;ures, nay excommunicated <HI>Julius</HI> Bi&s;hop of <HI>Rome,</HI> becau&s;e he had a hand in rever&s;ing them. Did not the <HI>Athana&s;ians</HI> undergo more than one per&s;ecution, rather then own a fal&s;e <HI>Succe&s;&s;ion,</HI> and &s;ubmit to <HI>Constantius</HI>'s imperial Power, which erected it? Was this to con&s;ult the <HI>outward peace</HI> and <HI>tranquility</HI> of the Church, before her ju&s;t Rights and Enfranchi&s;ments? Neither may we think &s;o meanly of them, as to believe they would have expos'd them&s;elves to Martyrdom, as they did, rather than comply with Dr. <HI>Hody's Law of Nece&s;&s;ity,</HI> in receiving an obtruded fal&s;e Go|vernment, if, as he characterizes it, it was no more than a<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>Cap.</HI> 1. <HI>P.</HI> 2,</NOTE> <HI>&s;ort of Theological Pedantry,</HI> if they had not known them&s;elves to be antecedently and indi&s;pen&s;<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">bly oblig'd to the contrary, though they were alone in it, as <HI>Elijah</HI> once was at <HI>Jeru&s;alem,</HI> and <HI>Daniel</HI> and a few more in the Land of <HI>A&s;&s;yria;</HI> and as <HI>Liberius</HI> declar'd it to be his duty, who was in the like difficulty.</P>
<P N="4">4. We are hence to take notice of the Artifice which the&s;e <HI>Eu|&s;ebians</HI> us'd for the re&s;toring and re-e&s;tabli&s;hing that <HI>Ariani&s;m,</HI> which they dur&s;t not own and profe&s;s, but at the &s;ame time prote&s;ted again&s;t it; which was to begin with the Catholick
<PB N="152" REF="91"> Bi&s;hops who were mo&s;t able, and had been mo&s;t zealous to oppo&s;e it, and maintain the contrary Orthodoxy, and repre|&s;enting them as Criminals in other re&s;pects, to depo&s;e and re|move them. Thus fell <HI>Eu&s;tathius, Athana&s;ius, Paulus of Con&s;tanti|nople,</HI> and others: then the Tares grew up, and took place, and the whole World became <HI>Arian</HI> upon it. <HI>Athana&s;ius</HI> gives us this account of their proceedings, and appeals to <HI>Con&s;tantius</HI> him&s;elf, as one that knew full well, that all the Calumnies which were rais'd upon him, were for no other cau&s;e, <HI>then to ca&s;t us (the Bi&s;hops) out of the Churches, and be able thereby to bring in their own impiety</HI><NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><GAP DESC="foreign">. Apol. p. <HI>693.</HI></NOTE>. And he farther &s;ays; <HI>That their fal&s;e Council at</HI> Tyre <HI>was &s;o early conven'd for the &s;ame purpo&s;e, to overthrow the- Council of</HI> Nicea, <HI>and bring</HI><NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg">Ibid p. <HI>727.</HI></NOTE> <HI>in their own decrees.</HI> That the me|thod, which they laid for effecting it, was, <HI>taking away the Ortho|dox Bi&s;hops</HI><NOTE N="&Verbar;" PLACE="marg"><GAP DESC="foreign">. Vid. Ep. ad So|litar. p. <HI>850.</HI></NOTE>; of which him&s;elf, we know, was made an ex|ample. This Artifice the more prevail'd, from the &s;evere tryals tho&s;e Bi&s;hops, which &s;tood, were put upon by their Abdication, for &s;ad experience has always &s;hew'd us, that Fle&s;h and Blood too often complies under tho&s;e circum&s;tances: As al&s;o from another prejudice the World has lain under, in being brought to believe, that the Offices and Unity of the Church are not &s;o tied to any particular Per&s;ons, however circum&s;tantiated, but that they may effectually be executed, and had, under tho&s;e that uncanonically officiate, and therein openly oppo&s;e the e&s;tabli&s;h'd Laws and Unity of the Church, upon the rightful Of|ficer's deprivation, contrary to them.</P>
<P N="5">5. Here we ought to take &s;ome notice of another device the&s;e artificial Hypocrites made u&s;e of, for the re&s;toring and e&s;tabli&s;h|ing their beloved <HI>Ariani&s;m,</HI> which was, by excepting again&s;t and omitting, in their Creeds, the manner of explicating the <HI>Eternal Generation,</HI> and <HI>Union</HI> betwixt the <HI>Father</HI> and the <HI>Son,</HI> by the word <HI>Con&s;ub&s;tantial,</HI> or the expre&s;&s;ion of <HI>one Substance,</HI> which the Coun|cil of <HI>Nicea</HI> us'd to that purpo&s;e: And this they did when they retain'd in their own Creed the &s;ame Doctrine with the Council (as the Council it &s;elf o<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">n'd they did) and &s;ub&s;crib'd to it. One would be very apt to think, and the World is very hardly brought to think otherwi&s;e, that &s;ince they agreed in the Sub|&s;tance, and the <HI>Eu&s;ebians</HI> were acknowledg'd to have come up, even to the expl<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">c<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">tion, in effect, there needed have been no more requir'd of them: For &s;ince they a&s;&s;ented to the <HI>Eternal Generation,</HI> and that the <HI>Son was made of no other Substance</HI> then
<PB N="153" REF="91"> How could they be interpreted to think and &s;ay otherwi&s;e? Why &s;hould a Phra&s;e make a breach among Chri&s;tian Bi&s;hops? Or why might not the Council have expung'd it? But yet, upon a thorough con&s;ideration, the Council will be found to have been in the right, in retaining its explication, and that tho&s;e Fathers upon ju&s;t grounds con&s;ulted the peace of the Church. St. <HI>Hilary</HI> thus Apologizeth for the many Creeds which were in the Church, and there were a great many in his days. <HI>You are not</HI> (&s;ays he<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Nihil autem mirum videri vobis debet, fra|tres chari&s;&s;imi, quod tam fre|quenter exponi fides &s;u&s;ceptae &s;unt: nece&s;&s;ita|tem hanc furor Haereticus impo|nit. De Synod. p. <HI>226.</HI></NOTE>) <HI>to wonder, most dear Brethren, at the many expo&s;itions of our Creeds, &s;ince the Heretical fury impo&s;es this nece&s;&s;ity upon us.</HI> And how can the Church's peace be con&s;ulted and provided for upon Heretical in&s;ults, and a Controver&s;y that ari&s;eth through their re&s;tle&s;s attempts, if, when tho&s;e that have a power to determine it, and have done it, agreably to the Reveal'd Religion, and in words that are innocent and &s;ignifi|cant, but are not found in Scripture, a party &s;hall be allow'd to di&s;&s;ent, and &s;eparate, becau&s;e they do not like the expre&s;&s;ion, tho they aknowledg the &s;ence to be &s;ound which is compriz'd in it? If Authority &s;hould acquie&s;ce upon the&s;e terms, it will &s;oon cea&s;e to be any Authority at all. A Change by allowance, makes an inlet to the aboli&s;hing the Article, and if Authority be &s;o imprudent as to grant &s;uch a Change, tho&s;e that require it are not &s;o unskilful but they fore&s;ee a door to their ends by it. Upon this bottom the <HI>Exoukontians</HI> came with their full blow upon the <HI>Eu&s;ebians</HI> and <HI>Semi-Arians.</HI> And <HI>Acacius</HI><NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg">Socrat l. <HI>2.</HI> c. <HI>32.</HI> Soz. l. <HI>4.</HI></NOTE> thus argues irrefragably upon them. <HI>If the</HI> Nicene <HI>Faith was once chang'd, and often &s;ince, what hinders but that a new form of Faith may be again made?</HI> And he thereby took off, <HI>ad hominem,</HI> the ju&s;t force which that Argument carried, <HI>Sophronius Pompeiopolis,</HI> and <HI>Elu&s;ius,</HI> two Bi&s;hops that contended for the Creed at <HI>Antioch</HI> urg'd a little before upon him in the&s;e words,<NOTE N="&Verbar;" PLACE="marg">Ibid.</NOTE> <HI>If the arbitrary conception of every day is to go for a form of Faith, the exact Rule of Truth will &s;oon fail.</HI> But our Hi&s;torian's<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Socrat. ibid.</NOTE> judgment is &s;ound, who thus freely gives his opinion upon the matter. <HI>In my judg|ment, if all men had formerly been, and now were, of the &s;ame opinion concerning the</HI> Nicene <HI>Faith, every contentious quarrel had been laid a&s;ide, and this pre&s;ent unrea&s;onable trouble had ceas'd in the Church. Silvanus</HI> had much the better of <HI>Aetius</HI> and his party, who, when they requir'd <HI>Eu&s;tathius</HI> to <HI>anathematize</HI> the word <GAP DESC="foreign">, becau&s;e it is not in the Scriptures, thus reply'd upon them,<NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg"><GAP DESC="foreign">. Theod. H. E. l. <HI>2</HI> c. <HI>27.</HI> ver&s;us finem Athana&s;. de Synod. p <HI>911.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Then let the&s;e words</HI> Exnihilo, Creatura, alte<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">us Sub&s;tan|tiae,
<PB N="154" REF="92"> <HI>&amp;c, which are not found in the Scriptures, nor the Prophetical Writings, nor the Doctrine of the Apo&s;tles, be rejected, and driven out of all divine Conventions.</HI> And &s;urely upon either of the&s;e fol|lowing terms, as, whether, with the <HI>Eu&s;ebians,</HI> men take a li|berty to leave the explication of the Church out of their Creeds, and retain the &s;en&s;e of the Council, or whether, with the <HI>Exou|kontians,</HI> they reject it, becau&s;e the terms of it are not found in the Scriptures, all Church Authority may be waved, and render'd null upon the growing of a party, even Hereticks will not le&s;s injure them&s;elves, than they do the Orthodox, upon the latter terms. For tho&s;e will thereby be equally incapacitated to draw up their own forms, and obtain &s;ub&s;criptions to them, as <HI>Sylvanus</HI> well replied to <HI>Aetius:</HI> And he that hath half an eye mu&s;t have &s;een what damage the Church of God hath receiv'd by it the&s;e la&s;t hundred years. All the Controver&s;ies, and troubles upon them, which have aro&s;e concerning Di&s;cipline, have i&s;&s;u'd from it: The di&s;advantages al&s;o which the Ancient Church had by rea&s;on of the <HI>former,</HI> are not le&s;s manife&s;t from the &s;ucce&s;s of the <HI>Eu&s;ebians</HI> upon it, who made them&s;elves by it a party from the <HI>Nicene</HI> Fathers, when at the &s;ame time they retain'd the true &s;en&s;e of their Creed, and, in the &s;equel, they ca&s;t out the Creed, and e&s;tabli&s;h'd the ranke&s;t <HI>Ariani&s;m,</HI> even <HI>Ariomani&s;m,</HI> (in St. <HI>Athana&s;ius</HI>'s expre&s;&s;ion often us'd by him) in its room by its advantage; which wi&s;er men than I believe they could not have compa&s;s'd otherwi&s;e, but, according to <HI>Socrates,</HI> as he is ju&s;t now cited, as their Here&s;ie was condemn'd, and wholly &s;ilenc'd by the foremention'd holy <HI>Nicene</HI> Fathers, &s;o it never had been re|triev'd, nor any more infe&s;ted the, not only outward peace, but, vitals of Religion, as it did. Some men who have been very free in cen&s;uring the &s;ame Fathers, becau&s;e they retain'd the explication, and would not be oblig'd to forego it, do not &s;eem to have fathom'd the whole depth of things, but tho&s;e who thoroughly think, &s;ee their great wi&s;dom and integrity in it.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="6" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. VI.</HEAD>
<P>BUT, notwit&s;tanding all that hath been &s;aid, Doctor <HI>Hody</HI> comes upon us with his full blow, and is well a&s;&s;ur'd, that we are not able to &s;upport our &s;elves under it: For he tells us<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">The Ca&s;e of the Sees vacant. p. <HI>42.</HI> and <HI>47.</HI></NOTE> <HI>That</HI> Felix <HI>the &s;econd Bi&s;hop of</HI> Rome, <HI>who was Ortho|dox, was in the year</HI> ccclv. <HI>put into the place of</HI> Liberius, <HI>an Orthodox
<PB N="155" REF="92"> Bi&s;hop of that City, he being depos'd by the Emperor</HI> Con&s;tantius; <HI>and that</HI> Liberius <HI>was depos'd and bani&s;h'd by the bare Authority of the Emperor, without any pretence to a Synod, and that too very unjustly; for no other rea&s;on, but becau&s;e he was Orthodox, and refus'd to com|ply with him in &s;ub&s;cribing to the condemnation of</HI> Athana&s;ius <HI>Arch|bi&s;hop of</HI> Alexandria, <HI>is manifest beyond all doubt, from the te&s;timonies of all Hi&s;torians: And tho he was made Bi&s;hop in the room of the unju&s;tly depriv'd</HI> Liberius; <HI>yet, fir&s;t, the Catholick Bi&s;hops of his own Di&s;trict communicated with him, and receiv'd him as their Metropo|litan. Secondly, his Ordinations were receiv'd, and allow'd of as valid, by, even, his Adver&s;ary</HI> Liberius. <HI>Thirdly, the whole</HI> We|&s;tern <HI>Church has all along own'd him as one of the true Bi&s;hops of</HI> Rome.</P>
<P>And I not wonder if this &s;troke does &s;eem, in the eyes of &s;ome, to fall heavy upon us, e&s;pecially in the <HI>Doctor</HI>'s appre|hen&s;ion, (and &s;ome others of his complexion) who hath abun|dantly &s;hew'd to the World, that he &s;eldom &s;ees half way, and that it is the &s;urface of an argument, which generally over-rules him: But it can appear no more than a flea-biting to tho&s;e, that have their eyes in their head. And I que&s;tion not but that I &s;hall be able to demon&s;trate to them, that it is no more; but affects the <HI>Doctor,</HI> not us; if they give them&s;elves their u&s;ual freedom in the exerci&s;e of their thoughts upon the con&s;iderations which here follow, by way of a reply unto him. And in the fir&s;t place.</P>
<P N="1">1. It is very evident, that the <HI>Doctor,</HI> and his party, have no advantage from <HI>Liberius</HI>'s practice, in his ce&s;&s;ion to <HI>Felix,</HI> and recognition of him as <HI>Po&s;&s;e&s;&s;or</HI> of the Chair, upon his own unju&s;t Depo&s;ition, and <HI>Felix</HI>'s unju&s;t <HI>po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion,</HI> by the Emperor. This (I &s;ay) can no ways vouch their mo&s;t fal&s;e and pernicious Do|ctrine, which they have endeavour'd to obtrude upon mankind, <HI>viz. That an unlawful Po&s;&s;e&s;&s;or, upon a lay and unju&s;t Deprivation, if he be Orthodox, may be warrantably receiv'd, and &s;ubmitted to, he ought to be, by the ejected Bi&s;hop, tho' he is every ways Orthodox, and depriv'd for adhering to the truth, and oppo&s;ing Vice or Here&s;ie.</HI> For all Hi&s;tories are <HI>&s;ilent,</HI> and give us no account that <HI>Liberius</HI> receiv'd and &s;ubmitted to <HI>Felix,</HI> as Bi&s;hop of <HI>Rome,</HI> or did any thing that can create a Su&s;pition of it. He &s;ubmitted to his bani&s;hment, to <HI>Berea</HI> in <HI>Thrace</HI> with that courage and faith which a good Bi&s;hop ought to do: And perhaps none exceeded him under the &s;ame circum&s;tances: We may not think that he was ignorant of the pleas which others do u&s;e in behalf of their re&s;i|&s;tance; as, that he was taken from his charge, and tho&s;e Souls
<PB N="156" REF="93"> <HI>over which the Holy Gho&s;t had made him Over&s;eer,</HI> in the execu|tion of which he had walked innocently as to <HI>God</HI> and Man; that his Flock became de&s;titute of his Mini&s;try upon it; that they were left among Wolves and expos'd to their treachery;<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><GAP DESC="foreign">. Theod H. E l. <HI>2.</HI> c. <HI>17.</HI></NOTE> as they complain in their Petition to <HI>Constantius</HI> for his return. But the&s;e <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">opicks were never made u&s;e of, in tho&s;e ages of the Church, to &s;tir up and encourage its Bi&s;hops to &s;tand out again&s;t the harde&s;t &s;entence of their lawful Governors: The mo&s;t righte|ous cau&s;e was not then thought a due botrom for their Ju&s;tifi|cation, in &s;uch a ca&s;e: Of which I have produc'd &s;ome in&s;tances above<NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg"><HI>C.</HI> 1. <HI>Sect.</HI> 4.</NOTE>: Neither did our <HI>Roman</HI> Pa&s;tor return to his See, till he had the Emperor's leave and order for it. And this is all we find of him during his exile, which was two years<NOTE N="&Verbar;" PLACE="marg">Theod. ibid.</NOTE>. There are no foot&s;teps during that time, of his Ce&s;&s;ion to <HI>Felix,</HI> by Re&s;ignation, or otherwaies, or that he &s;ubmitted and recog|niz'd him, or was interpreted to have done it. For Doctor <HI>Hody</HI> thinks,<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">P. <HI>47,</HI> &amp; <HI>54.</HI> Ca&s;e of the Sees vacant.</NOTE> <HI>that he needs not any thing to confute that &s;tory, which we find in the two fabulous lives of Pope</HI> Dama&s;us, <HI>that when Pope</HI> Liberius <HI>was bani&s;h'd, he constituted</HI> Dama&s;us (which he &s;u<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ely mi&s;takes for <HI>Felix) his Vicar, to &s;upply his place in his ab&s;ence, and continu'd him till</HI> Liberius <HI>was re&s;tored.</HI> Tho' whether it was <HI>Dama&s;us,</HI> or <HI>Felix,</HI> it is alike fabulous, and <HI>Baronius</HI><NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg"><HI>An.</HI> 355. <HI>num.</HI> <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">8.</NOTE> counted it &s;o before the <HI>Doctor,</HI> allowing <HI>Liberius</HI> capable, at the mo&s;t, but to make a <HI>Chorepi&s;copus,</HI> whil&s;t him&s;elf was alive, becau&s;e, otherwi&s;e, there would be two Bi&s;hops at one time in a City. And if we look upon <HI>Liberius</HI> from the time of his return to his Chair at <HI>Rome,</HI> and rea&s;&s;uming his Epi&s;copal Function, there will not any thing appear, which can probably per&s;wade us to think, that he took any notice of <HI>Felix,</HI> as a <HI>Succe&s;&s;or</HI> there, much le&s;s as Co-ordinate with him in Power in that Di&s;trict: <HI>Theodorit</HI> &s;ays,<NOTE N="&Verbar;" PLACE="marg">H. E l. <HI>2.</HI> c. <HI>17.</HI></NOTE> <HI>That he &s;ecretly withdrew him&s;elf from</HI> Rome, <HI>and and went to another City upon</HI> Liberius<HI>'s return.</HI> And we have rea&s;on to believe him in this affair, rather than any of our other Hi&s;torians, &s;ince it &s;eems plain that he &s;tudied it more, and we owe the famous, and u&s;eful <HI>Dialogue,</HI> between <HI>Liberius</HI> and <HI>Con|&s;tantius,</HI> to his indu&s;try and care, which pre&s;erv'd it, when all the re&s;t let it &s;tip; &s;ave that <HI>Sozomen</HI><NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>L.</HI> 4. <HI>c.</HI> 10.</NOTE> has a little toucht upon an expre&s;&s;ion or two in it. <HI>Sozomen</HI> &s;ays,<NOTE N="&Verbar;" PLACE="marg">Ibid. c. <HI>14.</HI></NOTE> <HI>That</HI> Felix <HI>died within a while after, and</HI> Liberius <HI>govern'd alone, the Providence of God &s;o ordering it, that two Bi&s;hops &s;hould not pre&s;ide at once in St.</HI> Peter<HI>'s See, to its manife&s;t dishonour, it being a note of di&s;cord, and
<PB N="157" REF="93"> contrary to the Laws of the Church.</HI> From whence, if we do infer, as the words may direct us, that they govern'd together until <HI>Felix</HI>'s death, it is apparent that they did not do it in an amicable con|junction, but in oppo&s;ition to one another, otherwi&s;e it wou'd have been no more to the infamy of that City, then it was when St. <HI>Peter</HI> and St. <HI>Paul</HI> pre&s;ided there at the &s;ame time. <HI>Fau&s;tinus</HI> and <HI>Marcellinus</HI> &s;ay<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Praefat. ad libel. praecum.</NOTE>, <HI>that he liv'd eight years after.</HI> But what if he did l<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ve &s;o long, or but a third part of that time, or le&s;s; and <HI>Liberius</HI> accepted of the terms which <HI>Con&s;tantius,</HI> and the Bi&s;hops, then congregated at <HI>Sirmium,</HI> offer'd unto, him, <HI>viz. That</HI> Felix <HI>and the Clergy of</HI> Rome <HI>&s;hould receive him, and both Officiate there amicably, and in common, and tho&s;e di&s;mal things which happen'd upon</HI> Felix<HI>'s</HI><NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg"><GAP DESC="foreign"> Theod. l. <HI>2.</HI> c. <HI>16.</HI> Soz. l. <HI>4</HI> c. <HI>14.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Election, as al&s;o</HI> Liberius<HI>'s bani&s;hment, &s;hould be forgotten?</HI> Even this does no ways imply, that <HI>Felix</HI> was receiv'd as a <HI>Succe&s;&s;or</HI> and <HI>Intruder,</HI> but the contrary: For, it was to be done upon a new compo&s;ition; and <HI>Liberius</HI> mu&s;t fir&s;t have made a ce&s;&s;ion, and then deriv'd on <HI>Felix</HI> <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">o much of his Power, as would place him in a Co ordination with him&s;elf; by virtue of which, and not of his <HI>Po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion,</HI> his right could come. But after all, this was never done: For, the people unanimou&s;ly refus'd the thing, and cried out with one voice,<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><GAP DESC="foreign">.</NOTE> <HI>one God, one Chri&s;t, one Bi&s;hop!</HI> Whence we may al&s;o learn, that the Empire's Authority was not by them thought &s;ufficient to give a Rule, by virtue of which, the fir&s;t Church Law, which re|quires one Bi&s;hop only in a City, &s;eem'd to be violated. Again, if Orthodoxy alone, tho in wrong, to all other Church-Laws, does legitimate a Po&s;&s;e&s;&s;or, it does not appear, that the Believers in the <HI>Roman</HI> Church, at that time, were aware of it. And yet two Bi&s;hops in that Apo&s;tolical Chair, if ju&s;tly placed there, would neither have dishonour'd the See, nor oppos'd the Church Laws, as I have ju&s;t now intimated, and farther exemplified above,<NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg"><HI>Cap.</HI> 1. <HI>Sect.</HI> 4.</NOTE> in <HI>Meletius</HI>'s and <HI>Paulinus</HI>'s ca&s;es at <HI>Antioch,</HI> which was &s;ome time after in our Church <HI>Annals.</HI></P>
<P>In &s;hort, (for this head of our di&s;cour&s;e has grown a little too much upon us) this great man, Bi&s;hop <HI>Liberius,</HI> and <HI>Victo|rious Defender of the Truth,</HI> as <HI>Theodorit</HI> ju&s;tly calls him<NOTE N="&Verbar;" PLACE="marg"><GAP DESC="foreign">. <HI>l.</HI> 2. <HI>c.</HI> 17.</NOTE>, was &s;o unhappy, as to offer vio<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ence to his own knowledge and con+&s;cience, and deepe&s;t &s;en&s;e of duty to the contrary, in that he contradicted (in the wor&s;t manner, becau&s;e it was by his pra|ctice) his own receiv'd principle of unity, built on a &s;u<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">e foundation, by<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Athana&s;. F, ad S<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">l<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters"> p <HI>837.</HI></NOTE> &s;ub&s;cribing to <HI>Athana&s;ius</HI>'s <HI>unju&s;t</HI> and <HI>uncanonical
<PB N="158" REF="94"> Deprivation,</HI> when he had refus'd, and oppos'd it to the Empe|ror's face, with the greate&s;t courage and Chri&s;tian fortitude, cho&s;ing rather to be an exile, and without hou&s;e and home, nay, even death it &s;elf, if the plea&s;ure of <HI>Con&s;tantius,</HI> which lay'd the fir&s;t upon him, had thought fit to condemn him to the latter, this great Man (I &s;ay) thus fouly fell, upon the poor motives of riches and honour<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Qui biennio po&s;tea, recupe|randae &s;edis a|more, Athana&s;ii condemnationem &s;u<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">&s;crip&s;it. Pe|tav. Rati<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters">arii temporis par. <HI>1.</HI> l. <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">.</NOTE> (which he had &s;o generou&s;ly de&s;pis'd two years together) to the amazement of mankinde and great di&s;|honour to his Station and Order. But God's Grace &s;o far pre|vented him, that he did not improve the trangre&s;&s;ion &s;o very &s;candalou&s;ly, <HI>as</HI> Dr. Hody <HI>thinks he might lawfully and warran|tably have done,</HI> and recognize <HI>Felix,</HI> and give countenance there|by and authority to the <HI>Doctor</HI>'s mo&s;t pernicious Doctrine, <HI>viz. That where a Succe&s;&s;or is placed in the See of a Bi&s;hop that is unju&s;tly and uncanonically depos'd, &s;o it be done by a Sovereign Coercive, or</HI> otherwaies irre&s;itible, <HI>power, there the Succe&s;&s;or may be acknowledg'd, if he be Orthodox.</HI></P>
<P N="2">2. As we have no ground upon which we may probably per|&s;wade our &s;elves, that <HI>Liberius</HI> &s;ubmitted to, and recogniz'd <HI>Felix,</HI> as a Succe&s;&s;or, either during his bani&s;hment, or after his return to <HI>Rome,</HI> &s;o we have it mo&s;t &s;urely deliver'd unto us, that the Believers in <HI>Rome,</HI> at lea&s;t a very con&s;iderable part of them, did not receive and communicate with <HI>Felix</HI> as their Bi&s;hop, but recogniz'd and adher'd to <HI>Liberius</HI> all along, even under his bani&s;h|ment and deprivation. For what le&s;s can be the importance of that which&punc; <HI>Theodorit</HI> relates of them<NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg">L. 2. <HI>c.</HI> 17.</NOTE>, when he &s;ays, <HI>That the Wives of the Magi&s;trates and Nobility in</HI> Rome <HI>plainly told their Husbands, that if</HI> Liberius <HI>was not restor'd to his Flock, they would leave them, and fly away to him their great Pa&s;tor,</HI> What other motive but a deep &s;en&s;e of their duty, and indefie&s;able depen|da<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ce u<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">on him, as their continu'd and proper Bi&s;hop, tho' a<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">&s;ent in his per&s;on, could advi&s;e them to &s;uch re&s;olutions and methods? Or can we believe them to have &s;o learn'd <HI>Chri&s;t,</HI> as to make an off<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">r of leaving their Husbands and Families, and think it was warrantable upon a lower con&s;ideration? And any thing le&s;s, then that which they apprehended to be their duty in a very high degree, would ju&s;tify them in it? And we have no rea&s;on to look upon this as the effect only of womani&s;h zeal, &s;ince their Husbands, the <HI>Magi&s;trates</HI> and <HI>Nobility,</HI> do not only not contradict, nor counte<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">mand them in it; but they are repr<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">&s;ented, by our Hi&s;torian<NOTE N="&Verbar;" PLACE="marg">Theod. ibid. &s;<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">pra.</NOTE>, to approve of their zeal and re&s;olution &s;o far, as
<PB N="159" REF="94"> that when their Wives as <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters">d their leave, that they might petition <HI>Constantius</HI> (he being then at <HI>Rome</HI>) for <HI>Liberius</HI>'s return; they not only granted their reque&s;t, but declar'd that them&s;elves were ready to have done it in their own per&s;ons, and that they for|bore, as being more lyable to the Emperor's wrath, if it was re&s;ented ami&s;s, tho' it was nothing but worldly policy, which is a too common bar to holy and ju&s;t performances, which prevented them: and their<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Ibid.</NOTE> an&s;wer is &s;et down to this effect <HI>They, &s;aid that they fear'd the wrath of the King, and being men, he po&s;&s;ibly might not pardon them, but they</HI> (i. e. <HI>their Wives) would obtain mercy, and one of the&s;e two be its con&s;equent, either he will grant their &s;upplication, or &s;end them peaceable away.</HI> The&s;e men and women, and the mo&s;t con&s;iderable of the people in <HI>Rome,</HI> being afterwards, upon farther con&s;iderations, united as one man, (interpretatively, if not in their per&s;ons) and &s;uppli|cating the Emperor, the words and matter of their Petition abundantly, and unexceptionably farther declare, That they neither had, nor own'd, any other Bi&s;hop than <HI>Liberius,</HI> but rejected <HI>Felix</HI> at the &s;ame time and did not communicate with him: For they &s;upplicate him,<NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg">Ibid.</NOTE> <HI>That he would have pity upon &s;o great a City depriv'd of its Pa&s;tor, and made thereby a prey to the treachery of Wolves.</HI> And what do they el&s;e but remon&s;trate unto him, that their City is <HI>without a Bi&s;hop,</HI> tho' <HI>Felix,</HI> at the &s;ame time, was an actual Po&s;&s;e&s;&s;or among them, made &s;uch by a <HI>So|vereign Coercive hand?</HI> Could they have more effectually re|nounced <HI>Felix,</HI> then they have done in the&s;e words? If he had been their Bi&s;hop, why did they not direct their reque&s;t to him for their re&s;cue from the Wolves that invaded them? E&s;pecially, &s;ince he was Orthodox in his Faith, and no bar lay again&s;t him in that re&s;pect. The Catholick Principles which they profe&s;s'd, had he been their lawful Bi&s;hop, would have directed them to it. Neither may we think, that they petition'd <HI>Constantius</HI> upon <HI>Felix</HI>'s remi&s;ne&s;s in his duty, by rea&s;on of which it was that the <HI>Wolves</HI> broke in upon them, that he would extend his Royal Arm for their a&s;&s;i&s;tance, (tho' the Catholick's Faith would have bore them out in the doing of it) &s;ince their actual want of a Bi&s;hop to re&s;ide among them, upon <HI>Liberius</HI>'s exile, and their longing de&s;ire to have him re&s;tor'd, was the ground and occa&s;ion of their Petition.</P>
<P>Our Hi&s;torian adds &Verbar; <HI>That none of the Inhabitants of</HI> Rome <HI>would come to prayers, whil&s;t</HI> Felix <HI>was in the Church:</HI><NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Ibid. <GAP DESC="foreign">,</NOTE> <HI>And tho' they &s;eem'd
<PB N="160" REF="95"> at fir&s;t to hearken to the Emperor's propo&s;al upon his permi&s;&s;ion that</HI> Li|berius <HI>&s;hould return,</HI> viz. <HI>That he and</HI> Felix <HI>&s;hould govern together, yet, upon &s;econd thoughts, they corrected them&s;elves, and with one com|mon voice cried out,</HI> one God, one Chri&s;t, one Bi&s;hop, <HI>founded upon a first common Church principle, which requires but one Bi&s;hop to be in a City: Upon this ju&s;t and pious demand,</HI> Liberius <HI>came back; but</HI> Felix <HI>withdrew privately, and went to another City.</HI> Socrates<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>L.</HI> 2. <HI>c.</HI> 29.</NOTE> <HI>&s;ays, that the People at</HI> Rome <HI>ro&s;e and cast him out of the City, and that the Emperor was forced to comply with them.</HI> Sozomen<NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg"><HI>L.</HI> 4. <HI>c.</HI> 10.</NOTE> <HI>adds, that,</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>a multitude requir'd</HI> Liberius, <HI>with a great clamor; that the Bi&s;hops of</HI> Felix<HI>'s party and the Emperor con&s;ulted together, and order'd his return; that</HI> Felix<NOTE N="&Verbar;" PLACE="marg">Ibid. cap. <HI>14.</HI></NOTE> <HI>died pre&s;ently after, and</HI> Liberius <HI>go|vern'd alone; the &s;pecial Providence of God &s;o di&s;po&s;ing it, that the Seat of St.</HI> Peter <HI>&s;hould not be a&s;per&s;ed with the calumny of being go|vern'd by two Bi&s;hops, it being a mark of divi&s;ion, and contrary to the Laws of the Church.</HI> Now, though the&s;e three famous Hi&s;torians differ &s;omewhat in their Relations, they all agree, that the peo|ple, or Believers, in <HI>Rome</HI> did not receive <HI>Felix</HI> either before <HI>Liberius</HI>'s return, or after it. <HI>Sozomen</HI> alone, &s;eems to intimate, that &s;ome of the Clergy of the City adher'd to him.</P>
<P N="3">3. Doctor <HI>Hody</HI> may ea&s;ily be ob&s;erv'd to catch at the two presbyters, <HI>Fau&s;tinus</HI> and <HI>Marcellinus,</HI> upon every occa&s;ion, and improve their Authority for the advantage of his cau&s;e: Tho' a man would wonder at it, if he wonders at any thing in him, &s;ince <HI>the two Schi&s;matical Presbyters,</HI> is the u&s;ual Epitaph he be&s;tows upon them:<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>P.</HI> 53.</NOTE> be&s;ides other remarques, that much le&s;&s;en them. But he particularly &s;ays of them, that, <HI>what&s;oever their Authority may be, it de&s;erves not at all to be regarded, &s;ince what they write is directly again&s;t</HI> Dama&s;us, <HI>who was one of that party: And &s;ince when they wrote, they were Schi&s;maticks, and had never regard to the peace, and tranquility of the Church:</HI> Surely their <HI>Libellus precum</HI> which they offer'd to <HI>Valentiniam, Theodo&s;ius,</HI> and <HI>Arcadius,</HI> indicates them to be men of excellent &s;pirits in many things, but e&s;pecially in their renunciation of the world, and its outwards advantages, when it came in competition with that which they believed to be their duty. It is the want of the &s;ame &s;pirit which hath mo&s;tly, all along, ruin'd the Church of God, and never more then in days of <HI>Con&s;tantius</HI> and <HI>Valens,</HI> during who&s;e per&s;ecutions, the generality of the Bi&s;hops, that were, in their own Inclinations, good and hone&s;t men, chang'd their Faith, as they were in dan|ger to lo&s;e their Bi&s;hop<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">icks, upon an op<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">n prope&s;&s;ion of it. I
<PB N="161" REF="95"> wi&s;h our modern Ages had given us le&s;s pregnant in&s;tances of the like recidivations. Neither can I forbear &s;aying, that my pre&s;&s;ing thoughts concerning them have &s;ome times occa&s;ion'd me to wi&s;h, with tho&s;e two Presbyters, that the Church had no revenues, but was, at this day, in the &s;ame naked condition our Saviour and the Apo&s;tles left her, and fir&s;t planted her. It mu&s;t be own'd, that the&s;e two zealous Men, tho' they did not too deeply re&s;ent the&s;e things, (for that cannot be done) drew undue con&s;e|quences from them, and carried them&s;elves into the <HI>Luciferian</HI> mi&s;take. Becau&s;e it is a fi<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">m truth, that we may not commu|nicate with a Bi&s;hop in his <HI>Ariani&s;m,</HI> they thence concluded, that we may not, either, communicate with him upon his re|pentance, and that his fall is not recoverable, by his giving &s;a|tisfaction, but he is to be finally driven from the Altar. They mu&s;t be, likewi&s;e, own'd to have managed this mi&s;take with too great an allay of that Go&s;pel &s;pirit, which is, at other times, vi&s;ibly di&s;c<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">rnible to be more pure, and le&s;s mixed, in them, but, the<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters"> integrity, <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">s Hi&s;torians, &s;eems to be ju&s;tly que&s;tionable, f<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">om the account w<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ich they give of the great and eminently re|nowned <HI>H<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">&s;ius,</HI> who&s;e fall all men have lamented, but excus'd at the &s;ame time his infirmity: But they, more popularly to ag|gravate the <HI>Eu&s;ebians</HI> inju&s;tice, (which they could not do too much, in the ways of truth) make him an eminent Actor in it, and &s;ay, that, in&s;tead of repenting for his fall, h<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"><NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg">Libel. precum. p. <HI>14.</HI></NOTE> took a Com|mi&s;&s;ion from <HI>Con&s;tantius,</HI> and &s;at Judg on the Bench; and that his impious Procedeings, and Cen&s;ure, again&s;t <HI>Gregory,</HI> Bi&s;hop of <HI>Emerita,</HI> immediatly call'd for vengeance from Heaven, that he was &s;truck &s;peechle&s;s, and expired on the place. But, I &s;ay, their Authority here &s;eems very little, becau&s;e they are <HI>primi &amp; &s;oli,</HI> the fir&s;t, and only men, that have &s;aid it. And there are not only no foot&s;teps in Hi&s;tory of it, but all Hi&s;tories have &s;aid the contrary.</P>
<P>But, whatever the Authority of the&s;e two Presbyters, <HI>Fau|&s;tinus</HI> and <HI>Marcellinus,</HI> was in other in&s;tances, (it mu&s;t be own'd to be pa&s;&s;able in &s;ome, though the Doctor, &s;ome times, will not allow it) &s;ince the Doctor has thought fit to make u&s;e of it, &s;o far as he app<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ehends it to &s;erve his turn, I &s;hall make u&s;e of it al&s;o, &s;o far as it evidently &s;erves mine. And,</P>
<P N="1">1. They tell<NOTE N="&Verbar;" PLACE="marg">Prefat. ad Libellum.</NOTE> us, that, <HI>Upon</HI> Liberius's <HI>exile, the Clergy of</HI> Rome <HI>were &s;o fa<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> from the Doctors thoughts,</HI> viz. <HI>that a Secular Pre&s;cription makes way for a</HI> Succe&s;&s;or, <HI>that the very d<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">y, in which he was
<PB N="162" REF="96"> bani&s;h'd and left them, they all,</HI> i. e. <HI>the Presbyters and Archdeacon</HI> Felix, <HI>and even</HI> Dama&s;us <HI>the Deacon, and all the Officers of the Church, went as one man, the People being pre&s;ent, and oblig'd them|&s;elves by oath, that, &s;o long as</HI> Liberius <HI>lived, they would, at no hand, have another Bi&s;hop.</HI> Our other Hi&s;torians have abun|dantly acquainted us with the zeal of the people for him, <HI>i. e.</HI> the <HI>Believers only.</HI> But leave &s;ome ground for us to &s;u&s;pect, that the Clergy might have come &s;hort of them, and have been le&s;s active in his behalf: But this doubt is wholly remov'd by this account from our two Presbyters, and they let us know, that the Clergy no ways came behind thim, once at lea&s;t, tho' they fell off from him a little after.</P>
<P N="2"><NOTE PLACE="marg">Ibid.</NOTE>2 They farther tells us, that, <HI>it was</HI> Dama&s;us<HI>'s corruption through ambition</HI> (ambitione corruptus) <HI>which, afterwards turn'd him a&s;ide from doing his duty to</HI> Liberius, <HI>as he was his Deacon: And, when he had accompanied him &s;even miles from</HI> Rome, <HI>prevail'd with him to de&s;ert him:</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Contra fas: quod minime decet cum &s;ummo per|jurii &s;celere quod factum u|niver&s;o populo di&s;plicuit &amp; &s;e ab ejus proce&s;&s;i<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">|ne &s;u&s;pendit.</NOTE> <HI>Al&s;o, that when he, and the rest of the Clergy, a little after, obtain'd to have Archdeacon</HI> Felix, <HI>ordain'd, and receiv'd him as their Bi&s;hop in</HI> Liberius<HI>'s room, they were, not only rude and un|civil, and deeply perjur'd in doing of it, but it was illegally done, again&s;t the Laws of God, and the Church: and that all the people were di&s;plea&s;ed at it, and refu&s;ed to be pre&s;ent during the &s;olemnity:</HI> It &s;eems the people of <HI>Rome,</HI> at this time of day, were better Chri&s;tians than their Guides: And tho' they were not obliged to <HI>Liberius</HI> by oath, as the Clergy were, they out went them in the continuance of their duty to him, as their proper and lawful Bi&s;hop. It would be a detraction from their integrity to &s;ay, that the&s;e Lay-Believers had no Bi&s;hopricks, nor Spiri|tualities, to lo&s;e, as the Clergy had: And that is the rea&s;on why they did not comply, as the Clergy did, but kept to their duties of &s;piritual Allegiance; when their Captains &s;o &s;hame|fully de&s;erted, nay acted contrary to it. But I heartily wi&s;h that there were le&s;s pregnant rea&s;ons producible, and obliging me to think, that the Clergy had never complyed with <HI>Constan|tius,</HI> nor enthroned <HI>Felix,</HI> if they had not well known that he otherwi&s;e, would take their temporalities from them.</P>
<P N="3">3. The &s;ame <HI>Preface</HI> imforms us moreover, that the&s;e Lay-Believers not only rejected <HI>Felix,</HI> but, <HI>petition'd</HI> Con&s;tantius <HI>for</HI> Liberius<HI>'s return, and, that, upon the Imperial Grant of their Re|que&s;t, they met him without the City, and joyfully introduced him: The Clergy are not mention'd here neither, but on the contrary, we are
<PB N="163" REF="96"> told, that when</HI> Felix <HI>had been ca&s;t out of the City by the Senate, the &s;ame perjur'd Clergy brought him back, but the whole number of Believers, and the Nobility, ca&s;t him out again, with great di&s;grace; and that they continued firm in their duty to</HI> Liberius <HI>until his death, and his Throne was voided, upon the terms that the Church allows,</HI> tho' they were, at lea&s;t, &s;ome of them, &s;o unhappy as, when he died, to elect <HI>Ur&s;icinus</HI> in his Chair, again&s;t <HI>Dama&s;us,</HI> and there was a &s;hort Schi&s;m upon it. But this Election was carried not with de&s;ign to invade the Laws of the Church &s;o as to plead the Right of the Empire again&s;t the Church in it, and Doctor <HI>Hody</HI> and his friends will have no advantage by it. <HI>Dama&s;us</HI> was no le&s;s unfortunate in the managment of his righful title again&s;t <HI>Ur&s;icinus,</HI> it being done, not only in a tumultuous way, but in &s;pilling of blood, of which we have account in our other Hi&s;torians<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Socrat. l. <HI>4.</HI> c. <HI>24.</HI> Soz. l. <HI>6.</HI> c. <HI>22</HI></NOTE> as well as in our <HI>Pre|face:</HI> Tho' <HI>Socrates</HI> ond <HI>Sozomen</HI> make <HI>Ur&s;icinus,</HI> and his party, the occa&s;ion of it: And, perhaps the two Presbyters may be over partial in their own cau&s;e, in laying it upon <HI>Dama&s;us.</HI> But my purpo&s;e is not to vindicate them as Hi&s;torians, but to make it appear, (which, if I mi&s;take not, I have abun|dantly done) that all the authority they have is full again&s;t the Doctor, notwith&s;tanding he has taken &s;o great pains to have the World think otherways. I now go on to my following Ob&s;ervations; as.</P>
<P N="4">4. It will farther appear to any con&s;idering per&s;on from the practice of <HI>Liberius,</HI> and the Believers at <HI>Rome,</HI> even of the Clergy until worldly fear and ambition corrupted them, that, a B &s;hops forcible ab&s;ence was not then believed to make way for a <HI>Succe&s;&s;or,</HI> tho' he was Orthodox: For, it is very plain, that <HI>Liberius</HI> was forcibly &s;ent into <HI>Thrace,</HI> and Orthodox<NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg">Theod. l. <HI>2.</HI> c. <HI><GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">7.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Felix,</HI> was in his Throne, but <HI>Liberius</HI> did not &s;ubmit to him, nor the Chri&s;tians in common, but the latter openly declar'd, that if he might not be re&s;tor'd, <HI>convolaturos,</HI> (as <HI>Chi&s;tofor&s;on</HI> tran&s;lates it) they would<NOTE N="&Verbar;" PLACE="marg">Theod. ibid. <GAP DESC="foreign">.</NOTE> fly together to him their <HI>great Pa&s;tor.</HI> So va&s;tly di&s;tant are the thoughts of the&s;e Ancient Chri&s;tians, in this ca&s;e, from tho&s;e which &s;ome have entertain'd at this day in the like juncture, who plead the forcible removal of their Bi&s;hops, as &s;ufficient to ju&s;tifie their &s;ubmi&s;&s;ion to tho&s;e call'd their <HI>Succe&s;&s;ors,</HI> though they are not &s;ent away near &s;o far from them, as <HI>Italy</HI> and <HI>Thrace</HI> are from one another.</P>
<P N="5"><PB N="164" REF="97">5. It is no le&s;s evident from the Circum&s;tances of our pre&s;ent ca&s;e, that the Prince's acceptance and confirmation of a <HI>Succe&s;&s;or,</HI> whom the Clergy have placed in a See, who&s;e Bi&s;hop is for|cibly ab&s;ent, or the Prince's po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ing him, in his own Right, even the Bi&s;hops concurring, were not thought &s;ufficient to legi|timate his Po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion, and ju&s;tifie the Subject Believers, that re|ceive and obey him, by virtue of it. For<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>L.</HI> 2. <HI>c.</HI> 17.</NOTE> <HI>Theodorit</HI> and<NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg"><HI>L.</HI> 4. <HI>c.</HI> 14.</NOTE> <HI>Sozo|men</HI> tells us, that, though the Emperor fir&s;t argued with the Peo|ple of <HI>Rome</HI> concerning <HI>Felix,</HI> and recommended him unto them as the pre&s;ent Bi&s;hop, and every ways able to guid and govern them, and afterwards commanded them to receive him, and the Bi&s;hops that were, then, congregated at <HI>Sirmium</HI> did the &s;ame, yet, both their Rights and Authorities were concluded incompetent, and refu&s;ed, becau&s;e they brought in <HI>Felix,</HI> and endeavoured to &s;ettle him, in a See that was full, by the Laws of the Church.</P>
<P>Once more; it is al&s;o hence evident, that, as profe&s;&s;ed Here|&s;ie, and <HI>Ariani&s;m</HI> in particular, was then reputed one ju&s;t ground for the refu&s;al of a Bi&s;hop, and not holding communion with him, if Here&s;ie be made the Terms of it, &s;o profe&s;s'd Schi&s;m was re|puted another, and it was not then judged lawful to hold com|munion with a fal&s;e Succe&s;&s;ion of Bi&s;hops, or with tho&s;e that Schi&s;matically communicated with them. This was the plain ca&s;e of the People of <HI>Rome</HI> and <HI>Felix,</HI> whom<NOTE N="&Verbar;" PLACE="marg">Ibid. &s;upra.</NOTE> <HI>Theodorit</HI> and <HI>Sozomen</HI> repre&s;ent <HI>to have retain'd the Nicene Faith entirely, and to have been without reproof as to that, but he was faulty, not only becau&s;e he ordain'd Arian Prie&s;ts, but al&s;o, in that he freely communicated with them:</HI> and <HI>for this rea&s;on none of the Inhabitants of</HI> Rome <HI>would come into the Church, whil&s;t he was there,</HI> but peremptorily <HI>refu&s;ed com|munion with him.</HI></P>
<P>The la&s;t Paragraph occa&s;ions a doubt to ari&s;e, which requires a Solution, even for <HI>Liberius</HI>'s reputation, and the Believers that had been his Adherents: for it is well known that after two years exile, <HI>Liberius</HI> was<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Atham&s;. Ep. ad &s;olitar p. <HI>837.</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">.</NOTE> over-ruled to &s;ub&s;cribe to <HI>Athana&s;ius</HI>'s condemnation: and though it <HI>abundantly argued the</HI> Eu&s;ebians <HI>force, and his own hatred of the Here&s;ie, and his &s;uffrage for</HI> Athana|&s;ius, <HI>when he had his choice free.</HI> And I have above &s;hew'd, that he did not go far as to &s;ubmit to <HI>Felix</HI>'s Per&s;on, whil&s;t he was in his Chair, yet he herein vi&s;ibly own'd their fal&s;ely a&s;&s;umed Power, and did partake of their Schi&s;m in &s;o doing, and &s;ince the Hi&s;torical Account, which we have of this Affair,
<PB N="165" REF="97"> does make it probably, at lea&s;t, appear, that the Believers at <HI>Rome</HI> did immediately communicate with <HI>Liberius,</HI> upon his return, and, con&s;equently, in his polluted State, what could they incur le&s;s, then the &s;ame Schi&s;m? And why may they not as well have communicated with <HI>Felix?</HI> Or how could they be le&s;s pec|cant in it? It being a certain Rule in the Church, that if a Bi&s;hop breaks the righful Succe&s;&s;ion, by invading a full See, as <HI>Majorinus</HI> did, when he came into <HI>Cecilianus</HI>'s Chair at <HI>Carthage,</HI> and if one legally po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ed of a See, and, &s;o far, no violator of Church-Unity, &s;hall, notwith&s;tanding, give to the U&s;urper his Letters of Peace, and communicate with him, as <HI>Marcian,</HI> Bi&s;hop of <HI>Arles,</HI> in St. <HI>Cyprian</HI>'s Epi&s;tles, did to the <HI>Novatian</HI> Bi&s;hops, who had u&s;urped upon <HI>Carthage,</HI> and broke the Church's Succe&s;&s;ion, in the &s;ame manner <HI>Majorinus,</HI> and the <HI>Donati&s;ts,</HI> did afterwards, and if a People communicate with &s;uch, they therein joyn with them in their Schi&s;m, and the Bi&s;hops, and Believers, contract its guilt upon their Souls, and the Church hath &s;till markt them for Schi&s;maticks, and &s;hun'd them.</P>
<P>Now, as to the thing it &s;elf,<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>An.</HI> 357. <HI>Num.</HI> 56, 57, 60, 66, 70.</NOTE> <HI>Baronius</HI> vindicates them, and tells us, that, <HI>upon</HI> Liberius<HI>'s return, he found a great many of the Catholicks to have fallen off from him, becau&s;e he communicated with the</HI> Arians, <HI>and to have receiv'd</HI> Felix <HI>as their lawful Bi&s;hop, believing</HI> Liberius'<HI>s right to be extinct, by rea&s;on of his fall, and &s;ince</HI> Felix, <HI>was not an</HI> Arian, <HI>and was not then in a full See, his Title was good, and they were not Schi&s;maticks in receiving him: and, farther, that a Per&s;ecution was rai&s;ed upon them, becau&s;e, in receiving</HI> Felix, <HI>they di&s;obey'd the Imperial Letters, which commanded</HI> Liberius<HI>'s re&s;ti|tution, and</HI> Felix <HI>continued the lawful Bi&s;hop, till his death, which he is inclinable to believe to have been eight years, according to</HI> Marcel|linus, <HI>whom he cites to that purpo&s;e</HI><NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg">Prefat. ad Libel precum.</NOTE>, <HI>but not daring to take this Schi&s;+maticks &s;ingle authority for it, thinking, no doubt, his own as good, he concludes it to have been but one year, three months, and three days, and after</HI> Felix'<HI>s death,</HI> Liberius, <HI>rejecting the</HI> Arian <HI>Commu|nion, was receiv'd, and, upon his &s;atisfaction and pardon, and his confirmation of</HI> Felix'<HI>s ordinations, they were all united, and the Church had peace.</HI> So from this account, it is plain, that here was no Communion held with any Bi&s;hop, that was Schi&s;matical, and a <HI>Po&s;&s;e&s;&s;or</HI> only, after <HI>Liberius</HI>'s &s;ub&s;cription: <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">or, upon his becoming <HI>Arian,</HI> he lo&s;t his Right, and the People there|upon ju&s;tly de&s;erted him: and &s;ince he had none, <HI>Felix</HI>'s Title, upon his Po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion, was good, and they did not receive <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 word">
<PB N="166" REF="98"> upon <HI>Felix</HI>'s death, till he made &s;atisfaction: and Dr. <HI>Hody</HI> goes along with the Cardinal, as to the main, but differs from him in that he will have <HI>Liberius,</HI> deprived for a time by rea&s;on of his <HI>Ariani&s;m.</HI> But alas! though, in &s;ome things, this Narrative &s;eems to help the Doctor out, and he is known to catch at every Bulru&s;h to help him&s;elf, what el&s;e but a <HI>Romance</HI> is all of it? And it hath not only, no foundation in authentick Hi&s;tory, but no foot&s;teps there: and as the Doctor has no other then<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Ibid. &s;upra. Num. <HI>72.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Baronius</HI>'s authority on his &s;ide, (even the two Presbyters in their <HI>Preface,</HI> overthrow the &s;ub&s;tantial part of it) &s;o <HI>Baronius</HI> produceth only &s;ome <HI>Apochryphal</HI> lives of their Popes for it, in which there will not be any &s;uch thing found neither, without the help of the <HI>Car|dinal</HI>'s conjecture, which u&s;ually, takes a great Liberty.</P>
<P>Be&s;ides, how were the Catholicks le&s;s Schi&s;maticks in de&s;erting <HI>Liberius,</HI> upon his &s;ub&s;cribing, and communicating with the <HI>Arians,</HI> (if he did &s;o,) then in receiving <HI>Felix,</HI> and communi|cating with him (which the Cardinal and the Doctor &s;uppo&s;e) who is own'd, by all, to have communicated with the <HI>Arians,</HI> &s;ince both were Orthodox? Though the Doctor takes a &s;trange liberty, and &s;ays that <HI>Liberius</HI> was an <HI>Arian,</HI> and therein differs from the Cardinal. But, I &s;hall &s;hew his precariou&s;ne&s;s in it anon.</P>
<P>But to leave the Cardinal and the Doctor in the enjoyment of their own imaginations, and &s;peak briefly, but home, to the matter: our Hi&s;tories are &s;hort here, as they are in many other ca&s;es, and do not give us any account of <HI>Liberius</HI> and the Be|lievers at <HI>Rome,</HI> from the time that they petition'd <HI>Con&s;tantius</HI> for his return, untill he actually repo&s;&s;e&s;&s;ed his Chair, and ex|erci&s;ed his Function among them, &s;ave that they rejected <HI>Felix,</HI> in that interval, &s;o we are altogether ignorant of the manner and degrees of <HI>Liberius</HI>'s repentance, upon his &s;ub&s;cription again&s;t <HI>Athana&s;ius</HI> and coming into the <HI>Eu&s;ebians,</HI> as al&s;o of the manner, and time in which the People receiv'd and recognized him. Yet we are not to doubt but that it was done upon his &s;atisfaction, (not in order to his &s;econd enthronization, upon the death of <HI>Felix,</HI> whom they fancy to have died the lawful and Catholick Bi&s;hop of <HI>Rome</HI>) whereby he was re&s;tor'd to the Church's Unity, from which his lap&s;e broke him off, and the Believers Communi|on with him was legitimated. Some high <HI>Romani&s;t</HI> Zealots, who receive the Council of <HI>Sinue&s;&s;a,</HI> will po&s;&s;ibly tell us, from the example of Pope<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>Baron. An.</HI> 3 2. <HI>Num.</HI> 89. &amp;c.</NOTE> <HI>Marcellinus,</HI> upon his Idolatry, that <HI>Libe|rius,</HI>
<PB N="167" REF="98"> being the Supream Head of the Church, and no inferior was capable of doing it, he <HI>penanced</HI> him&s;elf. And St.<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>Ep.</HI> 106.</NOTE> <HI>Au&s;tin</HI> &s;eems to be of an opinion that a Bi&s;hop of <HI>Rome</HI> is not to be &s;ubject to the Rules of common Penitents. But Doctor<NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg"><HI>P.</HI> 49. <HI>l.</HI> 1.</NOTE> <HI>Hody</HI> allows the thing it &s;elf, and &s;o far &s;ubjects him to the Church as to &s;ay, that upon his Re&s;toration, he received pardon from her, though we have &s;urer authority for it. We may not believe, that &s;ince the Church Rules and practice from the beginning, do not permit a lap&s;ed Bi&s;hop to be received, but upon &s;atisfaction, the&s;e Believers at <HI>Rome</HI> on the one hand, or this eminent and mo&s;t exemplary Bi&s;hop, (all along &s;ave in this one matter of &s;ub&s;cription) on the other hand, would have reunited as Pa|&s;tor and People, and not in a thorow compliance to tho&s;e Rules and Practice. Neither doth <HI>Baronius</HI>'s<NOTE N="&Verbar;" PLACE="marg"><HI>An</HI> 355. <HI>Num.</HI> 70.</NOTE> &s;ugge&s;tion &s;eem to be ill grounded, which is, that even <HI>Felix</HI>'s Party came in to <HI>Liberius,</HI> becau&s;e <HI>Felix</HI>'s &s;ucce&s;&s;ion &s;unk, and there was no care taken to or|dain his Succe&s;&s;or. For nothing can give a greater blow to a Sect then its remi&s;&s;ne&s;s in that nature, e&s;pecially when the &s;ucce&s;&s;ion of Pa&s;tors is not continued. We gain this much al&s;o beyond a contradiction, that a Bi&s;hop's Schi&s;matical Communi|on, and lap&s;e upon it, was not, in tho&s;e days, concluded to forfeit his Orders, but he was receiv'd, if there was no other bar, into Communion, and into his See, without a new Con|&s;ecration. No one &s;u&s;pects <HI>Liberius</HI> to have had one, neither would the Laws of the Church have endured &s;uch a thing.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="7" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. VII.</HEAD>
<P>AND thus, if I mi&s;take not, I have made good that which I promi&s;ed, upon my entrance on the former Section, and do verily per&s;wade my &s;elf that &s;uch as give them&s;elves a full liberty of thinking, and con&s;ider the Premi&s;&s;es therein con|tain'd, and the bottom on which they &s;tand, will readily yield that the advantages from <HI>Liberius</HI> and <HI>Felix</HI> are on our &s;ide, and not on the Doctors, and that their whole &s;tory is &s;o far from proving the forced ab&s;ence of a Bi&s;hop from his See and Peo|ple, whether it be by exile or an unju&s;t Deprivation, to legiti|mate a <HI>Succe&s;&s;or,</HI> though he be otherwi&s;e Orthodox, that all the argument it affords is on the contrary. I know the Doctor has farther pleas in <HI>Felix</HI>'s behalf. And I now undertake an inquity into them, following not my own, but his methods throughout his whole Chapter. And,</P>
<P N="1"><PB N="168" REF="99">1. The Doctor is altogether precarious when he<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>P.</HI> 42.</NOTE> tells us, that <HI>the much greater number of the Laity of</HI> Rome <HI>rejected</HI> Felix, <HI>be|cau&s;e though he was really Orthodox, they were not &s;atisfied in it, but being ordain'd by the</HI> Arians, <HI>he was thought to favour that Party:</HI> all our accounts which pretend to be ancient mentioning no &s;uch thing, &s;ave only that in &s;ome Copies of St. <HI>Jerome de</HI><NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg">In Acacio.</NOTE> <HI>&s;criptoribus Eccle&s;ia&s;ticis</HI> it is &s;aid, <HI>Felix the Arian.</HI> But <HI>Sophro|nius</HI>'s <HI>Geeek</HI> tran&s;lation hath left it out, and &s;o have the Ancient Copies which St. <HI>Jerome</HI> has<NOTE N="&Verbar;" PLACE="marg">Baron. An. <HI>355.</HI> Num. <HI>55.</HI></NOTE> followed in his <HI>Chronicon.</HI> But the Doctor is &s;<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters">mele&s;s in the Authorities which he produces in his Proofs. For,</P>
<P N="1"><NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Supra. l. <HI>2.</HI> c. <HI>17.</HI></NOTE>1. <HI>Theodorit</HI> &s;ays expre&s;ly, that they knew <HI>Felix</HI> had kept the <HI>Nicene</HI> Faith entirely at the &s;ame time, when they would not go into the Church with him, nor whil&s;t he was in it. Was it then becau&s;e they &s;u&s;pected his Orthodoxy in the Faith? Or could they in this conjuncture mean any thing el&s;e, when they pleaded, that they could not communicate with him, becau&s;e he communicated with the <HI>Arians,</HI> then that he joyn'd with them in their unlawful Succe&s;&s;ions; for the&s;e two were the only Points that could then fall under debate, <HI>viz.</HI> the Schi&s;m and the He|re&s;ie: but they did not think <HI>Felix</HI> to be an <HI>Arian.</HI> Again, when the Emperor recommended <HI>Felix</HI> and <HI>Liberius</HI> unto them, and requir'd them to receive both as joynt Bi&s;hops of the City, did the&s;e <HI>Romans,</HI> that refu&s;ed <HI>Felix,</HI> except again&s;t his Faith as the rea&s;on of it? Or make any &s;cruple relating to it? Was it not for this rea&s;on they rejected him, <HI>viz.</HI> becau&s;e they mu&s;t then receive him in a full See, by rea&s;on of <HI>Liberius</HI>'s incom|petent Deprivation, which they could not comply with, being obliged to have, as but <HI>one God one Chri&s;t,</HI> &s;o one Bi&s;hop, in a City? And nothing is more &s;ure then that which the Doctor &s;ecures him&s;elf <HI>to have gain'd from</HI> Theodorit<HI>'s Te&s;timony,</HI> viz. that <HI>they would not have refu&s;ed, if he had not communicated with Here|ticks,</HI> i. e. if he had not united in wor&s;hip with the <HI>Arian</HI> Bi|&s;hops, it being here, to be &s;ure, capable of no other &s;en&s;e, &s;ince he did not communicate with them in their Heterodoxy of Faith.</P>
<P N="2">2. Would any man, that did not only de&s;ign to fill the Margin, without con&s;ulting his reputation any farther, have in&s;i&s;ted on the authority of <HI>Freculfus,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Ibid.</NOTE> who wrote in the Ninth <HI>Century,</HI> to prove matter of fact in the Fourth, and at the &s;ame time grant that he <HI>did not write it from &s;ome ancient Historians?</HI> But, his infe|rence
<PB N="169" REF="99"> which he makes from <HI>Frecul&s;us</HI>'s conjecture (for he owns it to be no more) is prodigious. As, that it thence <HI>appears, that he did not think there was any other good rea&s;on for which they might &s;eparate from</HI> Felix. But why might not a rational man <HI>think,</HI> that, though he was not an Heretick, yet, if he was a Schi&s;|matick, they might, for that rea&s;on, &s;eparate from him, e&s;pe|cially, &s;ince the Principles of Chri&s;tianity will bear them out in it? Or, what if a Bi&s;hop be no Heretick but Sodomitical, Simonaical, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> Will his Orthodoxy in Faith compound for them all? The Doctor has declar'd him&s;elf to be of another o|pinion, but it was to &s;erve a turn, and &s;o it is now, of which I have already given<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>Cap.</HI> 1. <HI>Sect.</HI> 3.</NOTE> an account, and after all, <HI>Frecul&s;us</HI> is mo&s;t probably abus'd by the Doctor, and he injuriou&s;ly interprets his Original Words. For, why by <HI>Heretick</HI> (when he &s;ays, <HI>they declin'd the Communion of</HI> Felix <HI>as &s;uch</HI>) mu&s;t he mean an <HI>Arian?</HI> Since the <HI>Eu&s;ebian</HI> Schi&s;maticks are all along, called <HI>Arians</HI> by the Ancients, and their <HI>Ariani&s;m</HI> was generally interpreted to a mount to no more than their receiving a fal&s;e <HI>Succe&s;&s;ion</HI> of Bi|&s;hops, and that was one rea&s;on, at lea&s;t, why the <HI>Athana&s;ians</HI> refu&s;ed to communicate with them. Neither may we &s;u&s;pect that <HI>Frecul&s;us</HI> was ignorant of it: Since he wrote a judicious <HI>Chronicon</HI> from <HI>Adam,</HI> till about the &s;ixth <HI>Century:</HI></P>
<P N="3">3. But <HI>Athana&s;ius</HI><NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg">Ep. ad &s;oli|tar. p. <HI>861.</HI></NOTE> is manife&s;tly abu&s;ed by him, and if he &s;ays any thing to the Doctors purpo&s;e it is too much, and overthrows his whole Plot. For <HI>Athana&s;ius</HI> tells us, <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>all the People of</HI> Rome, not <HI>the greater number,</HI> were <HI>aware of their Here&s;ie.</HI> And more, [<GAP DESC="foreign">] that <HI>they knew it:</HI> they did more then &s;u&s;pect it. And the Doctor<NOTE N="&Verbar;" PLACE="marg"><HI>P.</HI> 43. <HI>l.</HI> 3, 4, 5, 6.</NOTE> confe&s;&s;eth as much in the next Lines, in his own tran&s;lation of <HI>Athana&s;ius,</HI> though in the fol|lowing Line he repre&s;ents <HI>Athana&s;ius</HI> to have only <HI>thought</HI> Felix <HI>an Heretick.</HI> And he is &s;o bold with him as to impute his mi|&s;take to his ignorance, which, &s;ays he, is <HI>not at all to be wondred at, for he knew nothing of him, and had never heard of him, but as put in by the</HI> Arians <HI>into</HI> Liberius's <HI>place.</HI> But, can we wonder enough at the Doctor's le&s;&s;ening Character of the great <HI>Alex|andrian</HI> Prelate, in which he is repre&s;ented &s;o very ignorant, as not to know what &s;ort of man he was that u&s;urp'd his great Friend <HI>Liberius</HI>'s See for two whole years, and whether <HI>Felix</HI> was an <HI>Arian</HI> or not, even, at the &s;ame time when the whole World quitted him of it? And, after all, if <HI>Athana&s;ius</HI> was not &s;o ignorant as not to know certainly whether <HI>Felix</HI> was an Here|tick,
<PB N="170" REF="100"> <HI>i. e.</HI> an <HI>Eunomian Arian,</HI> or not, nothing can be more plain, then that the <HI>Heretical Pravity,</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">, from which he tells us, the Catholicks here &s;eparated, related only to the Epi&s;|copal <HI>Succe&s;&s;ion,</HI> for the violation of which the <HI>Eu&s;ebians</HI> are &s;till called Hereticks by him, and by our Eccle&s;ia&s;tical Writers. And the in&s;tances of it which <HI>Athana&s;ius</HI> produces, do irrefragably make it good. As, of <HI>Gregory</HI> and <HI>George,</HI> who were brought into the Chair of <HI>Alexandria</HI> upon him&s;elf: in <HI>Auxentius,</HI> who was brought into <HI>Millane,</HI> upon <HI>Diony&s;ius:</HI> in the ejection of <HI>Lucifer, Paulinus,</HI> and <HI>Eu&s;ebius,</HI> by <HI>Con&s;tantius</HI>'s arbitrary and &s;ingle autho|rity.<NOTE PLACE="marg">Athaaa&s;. ibid. &s;upra. p. <HI>860, 861, 862.</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">.</NOTE> And la&s;tly, Which comes up to our very Point, in the in&s;tance of <HI>Epictetus,</HI> who introduced <HI>Felix</HI> into <HI>Liberius</HI>'s See at <HI>Rome</HI> by his Commi&s;&s;ion from the Empire, <HI>and created him Bi|&s;hop, in the Palace,</HI> upon which <HI>Athana&s;ius</HI> immediately makes this exclamation, <HI>what hath he here omitted which belongs to Antichri&s;t?</HI> So that the Hereticks here are tho&s;e who enthron'd and adher'd to <HI>Felix,</HI> and they are <HI>Antichri&s;ts</HI> into the bargain. So mi&s;erably is the Doctor mi&s;taken in this authority.</P>
<P N="2">2. One would wonder what advantage he propo&s;es to him|&s;elf and to <HI>Felix</HI>'s Title again&s;t <HI>Liberius,</HI> from the <HI>Oath</HI> that <HI>all the Clergy took,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>P.</HI> 43. <HI>P.</HI> 44.</NOTE> <HI>obliging them&s;elves by it not to accept of any other Bi&s;hop, whilst</HI> Liberius <HI>was living,</HI> e&s;pecially &s;ince this is the only thing he concludes from it, <HI>viz.</HI> that <HI>the Principles of tho&s;e Times</HI> did void <HI>Liberius</HI>'s See upon his &s;ecular <HI>Deprivation</HI> and Expul|&s;ion from <HI>Rome,</HI> and did ju&s;tifie the reception of another into his Chair, for, otherwi&s;e, according to his own &s;en&s;e of the thing, what needed they to have taken that Oath? But, I rejoyn, does no man then take an Oath to maintain an antecedent in|defie&s;able Right? Does our Oath of Canonical Obedience im|ply that our Bi&s;hops have no other Right over us, then that which the Oath gives them? We have been often told, that it obliges no longer then the Right remains, for the Defence of which we took it, but Doctor <HI>Hody,</HI> &s;urely, is the fir&s;t man that hath &s;aid it &s;uppo&s;es no right, nay, that it excludes it, and <HI>the Prin|ciples of tho&s;e times</HI> (unle&s;s he means his elder Brethren's, the time-&s;erving <HI>Eu&s;ebians</HI>) did certainly teach them otherwi&s;e. But, e&s;pecially, that a &s;ecular pro&s;cription did not void a See, and make way for a <HI>Succe&s;&s;or,</HI> whether <HI>Liberius</HI>'s Clergy knew it or not; if they did not, their ignorance is not to be our pre|&s;ident.<NOTE PLACE="marg">Ibid.</NOTE></P>
<P N="3">3. That which the Doctor pleads in behalf of the <HI>Roman</HI>
<PB N="171" REF="100"> Clergy, who de&s;erted <HI>Liberius,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Ibid.</NOTE> and con&s;tituted <HI>Felix</HI> their Bi|&s;hop, <HI>viz.</HI> becau&s;e <HI>Liberius, in the time of his bani&s;hment, had &s;ub|&s;cribed to the Arians, and they lookt</HI> upon him <HI>as no longer a lawful Bi&s;hop;</HI> this has a good bottom in it &s;elf. And al&s;o that which he farther &s;ays, to this effect; as, <HI>that 'tis Orth<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">d<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters">y we are to have regard to. Our love to our Bi&s;hop is not to be inferior to our Love to the Church. And our Oaths and Relations, in which we &s;tand oblig'd to him, are all for the &s;ecurity of the Orthodox Faith.</HI> For, if our Bi&s;hop be an Heretick, and indi&s;pen&s;ably m<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">kes the Here&s;ie the Terms of Communion with him, we are to &s;eparate, and not to accept them. For this we have in&s;tances of as eminent Bi&s;hops as Chri&s;tendom has had; as, <HI>Athana&s;ius, Hilary, Eu&s;<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">bius</HI> of <HI>Samo|&s;ata, Lucifer</HI> of <HI>Sardinia, &amp;c.</HI> who were bani&s;h'd into remote Di&s;tricts under <HI>Eu&s;ebian</HI> and <HI>Aetian</HI> Bi&s;hops, and th<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">y erected there their own Churches a part from them: Of which I have already<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>Cap.</HI> 1. <HI>Sect.</HI> 3.</NOTE> given an account. And the parity of rea&s;on is the &s;ame, and will equally reach tho&s;e Clergy men, who call a Bi|&s;hop into a full Di&s;trict, to pre&s;ide there and exerci&s;e his fun|ction in the &s;ame manner, if their, otherwi&s;e, proper Bi&s;hop &s;hall impo&s;e the &s;ame terms upon them, and indefei&s;ably, which the forementioned <HI>Arian</HI> Bi&s;hops did, upon tho&s;e Prelates. But then, Doctor <HI>Hody</HI>'s application of the&s;e Rules to the <HI>Roman</HI> Clergy and <HI>Liberius</HI>'s ca&s;e, is as fal&s;e as any thing is true, all agree|ing that <HI>Liberius</HI> only &s;ub&s;crib'd the fir&s;t <HI>Sirmian</HI> Creed, and he con&s;equently, could be no Heretick in the judgment of the Church, which quitted that Creed of Here&s;ie: Even<NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg">De S<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">nod. p. <HI>9. 15.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Atha|na&s;ius</HI> and<NOTE N="&Verbar;" PLACE="marg">De Synod.</NOTE> <HI>Hilary</HI> have done it. And tho' the Doctor will have it, that the&s;e two la&s;t have thought otherwi&s;e in &s;ome places of their works, which he has produced to that purpo&s;e, with the authorities of St. <HI>Jerome</HI> and <HI>Sozomen,</HI> tho&s;e places will be found either fal&s;e quoted, or to have a wrong &s;en&s;e put upon them.<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Ep. ad Solitar. p. <HI>837.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Athana&s;ius</HI> &s;ays expre&s;ly, (what ever it was that <HI>Liberius</HI> &s;ub&s;crib'd unto) he &s;ub&s;crib'd through force, and retain'd his fir&s;t &s;entiments entire: and we have ju&s;t now prov'd that he entred upon his government immediatly upon his re|turn, and that the Catholicks receiv'd him, and communicated under him. And we may ea&s;ily farther think, that he as &s;oon declar'd the force, and a&s;&s;erted his Catholici&s;m, and made &s;a|tisfaction for his Errors, upon Church grounds, without which he is not to be imagined to have been receiv'd. And &s;ince he &s;tood upon the &s;ame foot of Orthodoxy, the Docter &s;uppo&s;es <HI>Fel<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">x</HI>
<PB N="172" REF="101"> to have done, and was replaced on his Throne by the Empire, and <HI>Felix</HI> rejected, if the Clergy, upon the Doctor's principles, believ'd them&s;elves in Con&s;cience bound to &s;ubmit to the <HI>Po&s;|&s;e&s;&s;or,</HI> being Orthodox; they cannot be &s;uppos'd to have cho&s;e the latter and rejected the former, but, on the contrary, to have receiv'd <HI>Liberius</HI> and quitted <HI>Felix;</HI> unle&s;s they openly violated the Prince's Right and their own Con&s;ciences.</P>
<P>Tho', after all there is not one word of this affects our pre&s;ent ca&s;e; for, if <HI>Liberius</HI> did, at la&s;t, become an Heretick, and was rejected by the Catholicks upon it, the Doctor has own'd that he was Orthodox at the time of his Deprivation, and two years after. And &s;ince the &s;ame Catholicks, whom he &s;uppo&s;es to have rejected <HI>Liberius</HI> for his Here&s;ie, and not to have receiv'd him until he had retracted it, did adhere to him whil&s;t he was Orthodox, notwith&s;tanding his <HI>Secular Deprivation,</HI> it thence directly follows, that <HI>Liberius</HI>'s Secular Deprivation was not a competent ground, in it &s;elf, for a people's Tran&s;lation of their allegiance, during a Bi&s;hop's Orthodoxy. And their after re|jecting <HI>Liberius,</HI> as an Heretick, if &s;uch a thing was done, will only &s;o far ju&s;tify the Doctor's de&s;ign, and vindicate the pre|&s;ent <HI>Vacancy of our Sees by an unjust and uncanonical Deprivation,</HI> as they can prove our re&s;pective deprived Bi&s;hops to have been Heretical likewi&s;e: which none pretends, nor can ever do.</P>
<P>It will be objected, that <HI>Con&s;tantius</HI> would not have permitted <HI>Liberius</HI> to return and rea&s;&s;ume his See, unle&s;s <HI>Liberius</HI> had, not only &s;ub&s;crib'd to <HI>Ariani&s;m,</HI> but, continued a Profe&s;&s;or, and Propugner of it, according to his power, &s;ince he was exil'd, and depriv'd, partly, becau&s;e he refu&s;ed to do it, and <HI>Con&s;tan|tius,</HI> otherwi&s;e, would have been defeated of his de&s;ign, which he never &s;incerely quitted, but continu'd in truth a rigid <HI>Exoukontian,</HI> and irreconciliable oppo&s;er of the <HI>Nicene</HI> Article. But our Hi&s;tories, as I have already ob&s;erv'd, &s;peak very im|perfectly of this affair, if they be not altogether &s;ilent. And &s;ince all the account they give of <HI>Liberius</HI> after his return, is, that he was a<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Se Socrat. l. <HI>4.</HI> c. <HI>11.</HI> Soz. l. <HI>6.</HI> c. <HI>10, 11.</HI></NOTE> zealous <HI>Anti Aetian,</HI> and al&s;o <HI>Anti-Eu&s;ebian Arian,</HI> until his death. We are to look upon <HI>Constantius</HI>'s indulgence to him as the work of God, who can turn the hearts of Kings at his plea&s;ure, in that the lawful Succe&s;&s;ion was re&s;tor'd, and Truth and Unity, in &s;ome mea&s;ure, together with it, in the mid&s;t of that naughty Generation, through the Faith and Courage of the Believers; who&s;e con&s;tancy to their duty to
<PB N="173" REF="101"> their lawful Bi&s;hop, was a &s;ecundary means, by which it was effected, and they remain a beauteous example to po&s;terity in the like ca&s;e. And we may hence &s;trengthen our expectations of the &s;ame mercy, that tho' our Pa&s;tors be hid from our eyes for a time, they &s;hall be re&s;tor'd as at the beginning, if we, through want of Faith, and our ju&s;t endeavours, do not de&s;ert them, and God, in his wrath, does not put a final bar to their return. Surely a truer &s;en&s;e of duty to an exil'd Bi&s;hop has not appear'd, then in the&s;e <HI>Roman</HI> Chri&s;tians, for their Bi&s;hop <HI>Liberius,</HI> according to the account which all Hi&s;torians give of it: Tho' Doctor <HI>Hody</HI> is &s;o unfortunate as to make them one of his <HI>Proofes, or Pre&s;idents,</HI> for the warranting our practice, in receiving every <HI>unjust</HI> and <HI>uncanonical Deprivation,</HI> and <HI>Succe&s;&s;or,</HI> if he be <HI>Orthodox.</HI> I will add,</P>
<P N="4">4. That the Doctor keeps true to his wide arguings, when he would have us believe it to be imply'd, that <HI>becau&s;e the Clergy of</HI> Rome <HI>had a regard to Orthodoxy and the Faith, in their Oath which they took to be true to</HI> Liberius, <HI>upon his departure, and thereby engag'd them&s;elves to accept no other Bi&s;hop as long as he &s;hould live, that was likely to de&s;troy the Faith, they, therefore, did not engage them&s;elves unto him by it, that they would not receive another upon his</HI> unju&s;t <HI>and</HI> uncanonical Deprivation. For, &s;urely, the Oath, and its engagement, might take in both con&s;iderations: And why it did not, e&s;pecially, &s;ince <HI>Athana&s;ius</HI>'s and other Deprivations that were unju&s;t and uncanonical are known to have put a bar to their <HI>Succe&s;&s;ors:</HI> Doctor <HI>Hody</HI> may, po&s;&s;ibly, be the man that is able to give an account. But thus he will argue all along; as becau&s;e the Catholicks did refu&s;e to commu|nicate with particular Bi&s;hops that were <HI>Exoukontians,</HI> therefore the&s;e Bi&s;hops Lay and forcible Rights to their Sees were not al&s;o a ju&s;t ground for tho&s;e Catholicks to &s;eparate from them: the <HI>Roman</HI> Clergy bound them&s;elves by Oath that they would not receive an Heretick into <HI>Liberius</HI>'s See; and for that rea&s;on they did not oblige them&s;elves, by the &s;ame Oath, that they would not receive an intruding Schi&s;matick upon him: Be&s;ides, the Doctor<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>P.</HI> 45. <HI>line</HI> 2.</NOTE> tells us, that <HI>upon</HI> Liberius<HI>'s return, and the</HI> Fe|licians<HI>'s coming into him, he pardon'd them for breaking their Oath, (tho he would have it call'd by another name) and they pardon'd him for his Apo&s;tacy.</HI> And I thus argue upon him <HI>ex ore &s;uo,</HI> that their Oath could not relate &s;olely to the true Faith, and to nothing el&s;e, becau&s;e then they would not have wanted a pardon, &s;ince
<PB N="174" REF="102"> their bringing in <HI>Felix</HI> upon him made no change in the Faith, nor any violation of their Oath, as to that. Neither can they be conceiv'd to have obliged them&s;elves by this Oath, but only upon Church principles, as <HI>knowing that who &s;oever was put upon him would be a true Bi&s;hop,</HI><NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>P.</HI> 44. <HI>line</HI> 5, 6.</NOTE> <HI>and the principles of tho&s;e times did not oblige them to think otherwi&s;e.</HI> And it was their duty upon, <HI>Felix</HI>'s coming to the Chair, as a <HI>Succe&s;&s;or,</HI> to receive him. So then, their breaking that fir&s;t part of the Oath, which related to <HI>Liberius,</HI> was &s;o far from wanting a pardon either, that it was their duty to break it, and to di&s;claim all manner of obli|gation to <HI>Liberius</HI> by it. It might be their fault in that they took &s;uch an Oath, but their breaking of it was their duty, which asks no pardon. A few ju&s;t thoughts will direct an un|prejudiced man thus to conclude, upon the whole matter: <HI>viz.</HI> That, &s;ince they broke an Oath, and &s;inn'd, and <HI>wanted pardon</HI> for it, it was, in that they brought <HI>Felix</HI> into the Chair at <HI>Rome,</HI> as a lawful Po&s;&s;e&s;&s;or, when it was quite contrary to the princi|ples of the Church, which does not allow of &s;uch Po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ors, and to their particular obligations, by that Oath, to the con|trary. And for this they wanted a pardon at <HI>Liberius</HI>'s hand, as he wanted a pardon for his Apo&s;tacy. Which breach of Oath is ju&s;tly call'd their <HI>perjury</HI> by the two<NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg">Prefat. ad libel precum.</NOTE> <HI>Presbyters.</HI> Tho' the Doctor mu&s;t be allow'd to be &s;hy in calling it &s;o, becau&s;e the ca&s;e comes too near &s;ome of his acquaintance.</P>
<P N="5">5. What if <HI>Dama&s;us,</HI> who is <HI>wont to be call'd the Great, the Pious,</HI> and <HI>the Orthodox Dama&s;us,</HI> (and he has five times as many more glorious Titles then the Docter has reckon'd up,) did believe <HI>Felix</HI> a lawful Bi&s;hop,<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">De Pre&s;cript. c. <HI>3.</HI></NOTE> and receive him? <HI>Tertullian</HI>'s<NOTE N="&Verbar;" PLACE="marg"><HI>P.</HI> 45, 46.</NOTE> Rule abundantly &s;hews the unconclu&s;ivene&s;s of &s;uch arguings <HI>ab authoritate: What then</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>if a Bi&s;h<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">p, if a Deacon,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Quid ergo &s;i Epi&s;copus, &s;i Diaco|nus, lap&s;us a regula fuit, ideo He|re&s;es veritatem videbantur ob|tinere? Ex per&s;onis probamus Fidem, an ex Fide per&s;onas.</NOTE> <HI>hath fallen from the Rule, did therefore Here&s;ies &s;eem to obtain the nature of Truth Do we prove the Faith from per&s;ons, or per&s;ons by the Faith?</HI> Did the Catholick Faith and Practice bear out <HI>Dama&s;us</HI> in that he did? The Doctor does not p<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">e|tend to prove that. Be&s;ides, how many bad men are there, that have receiv'd the large&s;t characters from good men, and were thought to de&s;erve them when they were given them, but are their precedeing, or &s;ub&s;equent, vices made paterns for man|kind upon it? <HI>Dama&s;us</HI> was a good Pope, and de&s;erv'd well of the Church of God, in the admini&s;tration of his Function: But
<PB N="175" REF="102"> he might be a &s;editious Deacon, notwith&s;tanding. And, if the two Presbyters, <HI>Marcellinus</HI> and <HI>Faustinus,</HI> and Doctor <HI>Hody</HI> have given a ju&s;t account of him, he was an ill Deacon. But the Doctor only repre&s;ents <HI>Dama&s;ius</HI> as a good Bi&s;hop for an example to Po&s;terity.</P>
<P N="6">6. His argument which he u&s;es a little after in behalf of <HI>Felix,</HI> by which he thinks that he proves him a true Bi&s;hop,<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>P.</HI> 49.</NOTE> in that <HI>the Catholick Bi&s;hops of his own Di&s;trict communicated with him, and receiv'd him as their Metropolitan,</HI> is a little more bulky, but labors under the &s;ame inward defect with the former. As we are not to prove the Faith by the practice of one &s;ingle Bi&s;hop, &s;o nor by twenty, no nor a greater number, but by no means by an handful of Bi&s;hops that once inhabited the <HI>Subur|bicarian</HI> Region, or <HI>Roman</HI> Di&s;trict. They have receiv'd a Succe&s;&s;ion of Bi&s;hops, as Univer&s;al Monarchs, and Infallible, and they might be mi&s;taken when they receiv'd <HI>Felix,</HI> as a true Bi&s;hop, when he was not &s;uch. But the Doctor pretends to make it good that he was receiv'd by others, as a lawful Bi&s;hop; tho' his authorities for this are not le&s;s defective. He fir&s;t p<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">oves it, becau&s;e there are &s;ome Epi&s;tles in <HI>I&s;idore Mercator,</HI> in which <HI>Athana&s;ius,</HI> and a Synod at <HI>Rome,</HI> own'd him as a true Bi&s;hop: But &s;ince <HI>I&s;idore</HI> was &s;o ill advi&s;ed as to forge the&s;e E|pi&s;tles, and think the World would receive them as true ones, are we to believe that each matter in them is true, when we have his wretched authority only to avouch it, when he was &s;o unthink|ing at the &s;ame time as to lay two of the Epi&s;tles at <HI>Athana&s;ius</HI>'s door, who is known to have rejected, and ridicul'd<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Apol. p. <HI>861.</HI> &amp; alibi.</NOTE> <HI>Felix</HI>'s title to <HI>Rome</HI> at a great rate, by every one that has read any thing in his works? If there was &s;uch a tradition of the Church in <HI>I&s;i|dores</HI> time, it is to be rejected for that rea&s;on. Neither is there a b<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">t<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">er argument to proves the Epi&s;tles counterfeit, then in that they make <HI>Felix</HI> the true Bi&s;hop of <HI>Rome,</HI> contrary to the p<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">inciples and practice of the true Church. But the argument is not to be endur'd which concludes <HI>Felix</HI> a true Bi&s;hop becau&s;e <HI>I&s;idore</HI> &s;aid &s;o. Again, his <HI>Pontifical</HI> is not more Authentick then <HI>I&s;idores</HI> Epi&s;tles: And the authority it hath, is at la&s;t, re|&s;olv'd by the Doctor, into the foremention'd <HI>Tradition:</HI> And he does no more, in effect, then prove the <HI>Pontifical</HI> to be true from the <HI>Tradition,</HI> and the Tradition to be true from the Pon|tifical, when both go again&s;t that Faith which hath been from the beginning. Farther more, his argument to maintain <HI>Felix</HI>
<PB N="176" REF="103"> in his Chair, taken from the Miracle which the <HI>Legendary</HI> tells us was done at his Tomb, helps the Doctor on extreamly: I &s;ee he can have a <HI>Romanist</HI>'s Faith when it will &s;er vehisturn: And he is &s;o much the more precarious herein, &s;ince<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>An</HI> 357. <HI>num.</HI> 62, 63.</NOTE> <HI>Baronius</HI> own's him&s;elf to have been convinced by the &s;ame Miracle; tho' he had wrote a Book before, and prov'd <HI>Felix</HI> a fal&s;e Bi|&s;hop. It follows, that <HI>Felix</HI><NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg"><HI>P.</HI> 50.</NOTE> <HI>ordain'd five Deacons, twelve Pres|byters, and eighten or nineten Bi&s;hops.</HI> And what then? Might he not be a fal&s;e Bi&s;hop for all this? Did not the <HI>Novatians, Meletians, Donati&s;ts</HI> and <HI>Arians</HI> keep up their Succe&s;&s;ion by their Ordinations? Were they therefore true Bi&s;hops? He ades,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Ibid.</NOTE> our Hi&s;torians mention <HI>how the Laity of</HI> Rome <HI>refu&s;ed to commu|nicate with him, but not a word that the Bi&s;hops did.</HI> I am not concern'd to enquire &s;trictly into the truth of this; &s;ince the merit of our cau&s;e does not depend on their complyance, or a greater number of Bi&s;hops, if it be done again&s;t the Laws and Principles of the Church. I am &s;orry, if they did not refu&s;e communion with him, but came &s;o notoriou&s;ly behind the Laity in doing their duty. Tho' I cannot &s;ee what the Doctor can hence infer to his advantage, unle&s;s it be, that Bi&s;hops have laid a&s;ide their duty, when they coold not otherwi&s;e keep their temporalities: It being, in all likelyhood, that one con&s;ide|ration which made them comply with <HI>Felix,</HI> according to the <HI>Eu&s;ebian</HI> practice at that time. I have already demon&s;trated that their <HI>perjury</HI> con&s;i&s;ted in receiving a <HI>&s;econd</HI> Bi&s;hop, and &s;hall not take further notice of what is<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>P.</HI> 51.</NOTE> urged to the contrary. As al&s;o when the &s;ame is<NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg"><HI>P.</HI> 53.</NOTE> repeated by the Doctor. For he &s;eems to be more then ordinary careful to wipe off that &s;tain: And it neerly concerns him to do it, though he wa&s;hes only an <HI>Aethio|pian</HI> skin. I will al&s;o venture to think, that his Authority from<NOTE N="&Verbar;" PLACE="marg"><HI>P.</HI> 51.</NOTE> <HI>Philostorgius</HI> is not worth taking notice of. And go on di|rectly to his next &s;eat of argumentation, where,</P>
<P N="7">7. He contends with a great deal of a&s;&s;urance that <HI>Felix</HI> was own'd by <HI>Liberius</HI> him&s;elf as a true Bi&s;hop of <HI>Rome,</HI> becau&s;e <HI>his Ordinations were receiv'd by him as valid:</HI><NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>P.</HI> 47. 51.</NOTE> Now, tho' I do not find any authority which vouches this, but that of the two<NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg">In Libel pre|cum <HI>359.</HI> num. <HI>70.</HI></NOTE> Presbyters <HI>Fau&s;tinus</HI> and <HI>Marcellinus,</HI> and <HI>Baronius,</HI> and the Doctor: Tho' the learned <HI>Cardinal</HI> does not pretend one pre|cedent for it: Yet I'le grant it: It being no new thing to find that our Ancient Hi&s;torians have let &s;lip other things be&s;ides this: And what if it be all true? Did not <HI>Melchiades,</HI> Bi&s;hop of <HI>Rome,</HI>
<PB N="177" REF="103"> receive the <HI>Donati&s;ts</HI> Bi&s;hops in their Orders, even tho&s;e whom <HI>Majorinus</HI> had O<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">dain'd,<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Aug. Ep. <HI>162</HI></NOTE> upon their coming in and &s;ubmi&s;&s;ion to the Catholick Church? But nothing is more certain then that he did not own, at the &s;ame time, <HI>Majorinus</HI> to be the lawful Bi&s;hop of <HI>Carthage,</HI> and <HI>Cecilianus</HI> to be the Intruder. The Council of <HI>Nicea</HI> receiv'd the <HI>Meletian</HI> Clergy upon the &s;ame terms, in their <HI>Conciliary</HI> Epi&s;tle to the <HI>Alexandrians:</HI> For,<NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg">Socrat. l. <HI>1.</HI> c. <HI>6.</HI> The<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">d. H. E l. <HI>1.</HI> c. <HI>11.</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">.</NOTE> what ever the Council might mean by the <HI>My&s;tical laying on of hands,</HI> which they receiv'd upon their Admi&s;&s;ion, we may not think it meant thereby a &s;econd Ordination, &s;ince we are told that they re|tain'd their Eccle&s;ia&s;tical degree, and right to Officiate,<NOTE PLACE="marg"><GAP DESC="foreign">.</NOTE> and lo&s;t nothing but their Seniority: And the word <GAP DESC="foreign">, added to <GAP DESC="foreign">, does not imply their re<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">eiving new O<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ders, but a Co<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">roboration of their old ones. To which<NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg"><HI>L.</HI> 4. <HI>c.</HI> 23. <GAP DESC="foreign">.</NOTE> <HI>Sozomen</HI> adds, that they were allow'd, <HI>to communicate and exerci&s;e their Mini&s;tery:</HI> Neither may we think, that this grant, and their admi&s;&s;ion to give attendance at the Altar, implys them to have lo&s;t their Orders. Now, can the loo&s;e&s;t thoughts apprehend that <HI>Meletius</HI> was accepted by the <HI>Nicene</HI> Fathers, and obey'd as the Lawful Bi&s;hop of <HI>Alexandria,</HI> becau&s;e his Ordinations were accep<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ed? Or, (to back it with another-in&s;tance) &s;ince <HI>Alexander,</HI> into who&s;e <HI>Alexandrian</HI> Dioce&s;s <HI>Me, letius</HI> intruded, did, in obedience to the Council's Authority receive tho&s;e of his Ordaining, is he therefore to be concluded to have received him as rightful Bi&s;hop there, in the &s;ame man|ner Doctor <HI>Hody</HI> would have us believe <HI>Liberius</HI> did <HI>Felix?</HI> The Doctor him&s;elf dares not &s;ay &s;o, upon &s;econd thoughts.</P>
<P>I know very well, that, not only &s;ome <HI>School-Men,</HI> but other learned Bi&s;hops and Doctors have a&s;&s;erted the Ordina|tions which have been made contrary to the Law of the Church, and in Schi&s;m, to be altogether <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">oid, and that nothing le&s;s then a &s;econd Ordination can make amends, and place tho&s;e per&s;ons, who have receiv'd them, in a Sacerdotal &s;tation: And there are &s;ome who &s;trongly plead&punc; that the Council of <HI>Nicea</HI> is on their &s;ide, when<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>Car.</HI> 3.</NOTE> it thus determines; <HI>viz. that the</HI> Cathari&s;ts <HI>or</HI> Novatians, <HI>which return to the Church, &s;hall be receiv'd by Impo&s;ition of hands, and remain among the Clergy.</HI> The meaning of which they will have to be, that they &s;hall be Re-ordain'd in order to it: And they ground their opinion upon the word <GAP DESC="foreign">, which is u&s;ed to &s;ignify Impo&s;ition of hands in Ordination, as well as upon repentance: And believe
<PB N="178" REF="104"> it to be u&s;ed altogether in the former &s;en&s;e, in that Canon. I have con&s;ider'd the Canon as well as I could, and mu&s;t &s;ay, that I cannot per&s;wade my &s;elf to be of their mind. But whe|ther they are in the right, or in the wrong, the &s;everal Do|ctors different Judgments &s;o far &s;erve us, as to &s;hew the ra&s;hne&s;s of Doctor <HI>Hody</HI>'s inference. If he had fir&s;t made it appear, that <HI>Liberius</HI> was among the&s;e Doctors, who a&s;&s;erted all Ordinations void, that were made by a <HI>&s;econd</HI> Bi&s;hop, again&s;t the Law of the Church, his con&s;equence had then been direct and nece&s;&s;ary, <HI>viz.</HI> that &s;ince <HI>Liherius</HI> receiv'd <HI>Felix</HI>'s Ordinations as true ones, he did not look upon him as a <HI>&s;econd,</HI> but a rightful Bi&s;hop: But this he hath neither &s;uppo&s;ed, nor attempted to prove: though the contrary &s;eems mo&s;t probable; from the practice of the Church, about that time, which receiv'd the Ordinations which the <HI>Arian</HI> Bi&s;hops made, as <HI>Po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ors.</HI> But in that he argues, and concludes univer&s;ally, that <HI>Felix</HI> mu&s;t have been the true Bi&s;hop of <HI>Rome,</HI> becau&s;e <HI>Liberius</HI> receiv'd his Ordinations, when his receiving them might as well prove the quite contrary, &s;ince, for any thing he knows, or has made to appear, <HI>Liberius</HI> was of the opinion that the Ordinations wich a <HI>Second</HI> or un|lawful Bi&s;hop made in Schi&s;m, were valid; and it is granted by all to have been a di&s;puted point; nothing can be more ma|nife&s;t then the weakne&s;s of his con&s;equence, and his undue a&s;&s;umption: It is to go for a <HI>Hodi&s;m:</HI> His Book will be found to be &s;tuffed with inferences of the &s;ame alloy. I cannot for|bear to &s;ay, that I do not remember one concluding argument in it. And that &s;ubject neither de&s;erves nor is capable of better, who&s;e main undertaking is to <HI>vindicate vacant Sees by unju&s;t and uncanonical Deprivations.</HI></P>
<P N="8">8. But<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>P.</HI> 52, 53.</NOTE> he adds, that <HI>the whole We&s;tern Church has all along own'd</HI> Felix, <HI>as one of the true Bi&s;hops of</HI> Rome, This is the better laid <HI>medium</HI> of the two, but it will not infer his conclu&s;ion. For, fi<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">&s;t, the <HI>We&s;tern</HI> Bi&s;hops are but a moiety of the Bi&s;hops in the Chri&s;tian Church; and then, he in&s;tances only in &s;uch of them as are too modern to prove a point in the fourth Century: (they coming within the tenth or very near it) e&s;pecially &s;ince none before them have done it. But if his citations be true, which I have &s;ome rea&s;on to &s;u&s;pect, they add but little to the repute of the whole. If <HI>Papebrochius</HI> &s;ays true: And the <HI>Martyrologies, Breviaries,</HI> &amp;c. do own <HI>Felix</HI> to have been the t<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ue Bi&s;hop of <HI>Rome,</HI> will they either by &s;ufficient authorities for
<PB N="179" REF="104"> the Doctor in this ca&s;e? Do not even &s;ome of the <HI>Roman</HI> Do|cters di&s;own <HI>Felix</HI> as the lawful Bi&s;hop of <HI>Rome,</HI> becau&s;e two Bi&s;hops could not be at a time in one City? Be&s;ides, there is not one of the Doctors authorities that mentions <HI>Felix,</HI> as a true Bi&s;hop of <HI>Rome,</HI> upon any other bottom then a &s;uppo&s;ed Tradi|tion, which will hardly be of force again&s;t a generally receiv'd truth: And, after all, tho&s;e two Rules in <HI>Tertullian</HI> come &s;o full upon them, that they do not &s;eem to be either e&s;caped, or with&s;tood.<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Quodcunque adver&s;us veritatem &s;apit, haec erit Here&s;is, etiam vetus con&s;uetudo; &dagger; In tan|tum enim Here&s;is deputabitur, quod po&s;tea in|troducitur; in quantum veritas habebitur, quod retro a primordio traditum e&s;t. * De Veland, virginibus c. <HI>1.</HI> &dagger; l. <HI>1.</HI> adv. marc. c. <HI>1.</HI></NOTE> <HI>What&s;oever</HI> (&s;ayth he) <HI>&s;avours contrary to truth, this is Here&s;ie, tho' it be an old Cu&s;tom. That which is after|wards induced, &s;hall be e&s;teemed Here&s;ie, in the &s;ame mea&s;ure, as that which was de|livered in times past, and from the begin|ing, &s;hall be accounted truth.</HI></P>
<P N="9">9. Well! But he farther<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>P.</HI> 53.</NOTE> &s;aith, that <HI>Felix is likewi&s;e own'd for a true Pope, in the</HI> Ea&s;tern <HI>Church by</HI> Nicephorus <HI>the Patriarch of</HI> Con&s;tantinople, <HI>who flouri&s;h'd in the year</HI> 806. <HI>and that too tho'</HI> Nicephorus <HI>well knew, that he came in the place of</HI> Liberius, <HI>when</HI> Liberius was unju&s;tly depos'd, <HI>by the Emperor,</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>as in his Chronology. And, as</HI> Liberius <HI>is reckon'd up the</HI> 25. <HI>Bi&s;hop of</HI> Rome, <HI>&s;o our</HI> Felix, <HI>is call'd the</HI> 36. true; he ought to be call'd <HI>our, i. e. his Felix,</HI> as a fit Bi&s;hop for him, who writes him&s;elf <HI>R. Rmo. in Chri&s;to Patri ac Dno. Dno. Joanni Archiep. Cantuar. a Sacris Dome&s;t.</HI> I do not in the lea&s;t que&s;tion, but he would have been a <HI>Sacris Dome&s;t.</HI> to <HI>Felix</HI> at <HI>Rome,</HI> if he had been of the &s;ame time, and could have obtain'd the honour to have a&s;&s;i&s;ted him in his <HI>Arian</HI> Ordinations, as he hath done <HI>John</HI> at <HI>Lambeth,</HI> if that had been as con&s;i&s;tent with his intere&s;t at <HI>Rome,</HI> as this was with his intere&s;t at <HI>Lambeth,</HI> and as likely a way to obtain two fat Benefices, with as many Dignities of the &s;ame quality, and, in due time, an <HI>Eu&s;ebian</HI> prize, <HI>i. e.</HI> a good Bi&s;hoprick. Nor do I que&s;tion but that he would have de|&s;erted <HI>Felix</HI> too, upon his abdication, that afterward follow'd by <HI>Con&s;tantine,</HI> as <HI>his Dama&s;us</HI> (for we will not envy him the having both of them for his own) de&s;erted <HI>Liberius,</HI> when the &s;ame Secular Hand depriv'd him, and that the Doctor would have believ'd him&s;elf as little guilty of <HI>perjury</HI> for it, as he thinks <HI>Dama&s;us</HI> was, notwith&s;tanding his Oath of canonical Obedience. <HI>Felix</HI>'s title at <HI>Rome,</HI> and Doctor <HI>Til&mdash;n</HI>'s at <HI>Lambeth,</HI> were &s;o much the &s;ame, that he who could recognize the one,
<PB N="180" REF="105"> might, for the &s;ame rea&s;on, recognize the other: Both were enthron'd by the &s;ame &s;ecular arm, when that &s;ame arm had remov'd their Predece&s;&s;ors, without the advice and con|currence of the Colledge of Bi&s;hops, or laying trea&s;on, or a Church forfeiture, to their Charge, <HI>cum locus Fabiani, &amp; locus Sacerdotalis non vacaret,</HI> but the righful Bi&s;hops were alive, and fill'd their Sees at the &s;ame time. Neither will it (tho' the Doctor is of another opinion) in the lea&s;t advantage <HI>Felix</HI>'s title, nor, by con&s;equence, Doctor <HI>Til&mdash;n</HI>'s, in that <HI>Ni|cephorus</HI> has left him and <HI>Liberius</HI> upon record, in his<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Liberius ex|terminatus a Constantio Ari|ano. An <HI>6.</HI> Fel. an. <HI>1.</HI> ed. Anto|nii Contii Pa|ri&s;. <HI>1573.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Chronology,</HI> as B<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">&s;hops of <HI>Rome,</HI> and <HI>Felix, Liberius</HI>'s Succe&s;&s;or, upon <HI>Liberius</HI>'s abdication by <HI>Con&s;tantius.</HI> For tho' this <HI>Nicephorus,</HI> Bi&s;hop of <HI>Con&s;tantinople,</HI> is of more authority then <HI>Nicephorus Cali&s;ti,</HI> the fam'd Eccle&s;ia&s;tical Hi&s;torian; yet his credit is not &s;uch, as to conclude the whole <HI>Greek</HI> Church: be&s;ides, the Doctor owns that he did not write his <HI>Chronology</HI> till the beginning of the ninth <HI>Century:</HI> but that which we are chiefly to con&s;ider is, that <HI>Chro|nologers,</HI> in making their Tables, have a re&s;pect only to matter of Fact, and &s;et down the Succe&s;&s;ors, as they find them in po&s;&s;e&s;|&s;ion, without a regard to their Right: and we are to make u&s;e of them for that purpo&s;e only, and to take from them the Succe&s;|&s;ions; but the truth of their Titles, if conte&s;ted, are to be prov'd otherways. And, accordingly, not only the Chronologers of the Reformation, but of the Church of <HI>Rome,</HI> &s;et down in their Succe&s;&s;ions, or rather Po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ions, all the Antipopes, together with the true ones; even <HI>Constantine</HI> and <HI>Formo&s;us.</HI> For his &s;a|tisfaction, as to the truth of which, I will at pre&s;ent, de&s;ire the Reader to con&s;ult <HI>Labbee</HI>'s account of the Bi&s;hops of <HI>Rome,</HI> which he will find in the end of his <HI>Di&s;&s;ertatio Hi&s;torica,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Labbe de &s;crip|toribus eccle&s;i|a&s;ticis.</NOTE> <HI>de Scriptoribus Eccle&s;ia&s;ticis, pars &s;ecunda:</HI> but neither the <HI>Roman</HI> Church nor any el&s;e have thought <HI>Con&s;tantine</HI> and <HI>Formo&s;us</HI> to be better or truer Popes for it.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="8" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. VIII.</HEAD>
<P>I Should now have done with the Reign of <HI>Con&s;tantius,</HI> did not one more remarkable pa&s;&s;age occur in it which I may not omit. It is this, according to the account which <HI>Theodorit</HI> gives of it, in his<NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg"><HI>L</HI> 2. <HI>c.</HI> 31, 32.</NOTE> Eccle&s;ia&s;tical Hi&s;tory. Eudoxius <HI>the</HI> Arian Po&s;&s;e&s;|&s;or, <HI>being remov'd from the See of</HI> Antioch <HI>to</HI> Con&s;tantinople, <HI>the</HI> Arians <HI>elected</HI> Meletius <HI>for their Bi&s;hop at</HI> Antioch, <HI>and</HI> Eu&s;ebius
<PB N="181" REF="105"> Samo&s;aten&s;is, <HI>(being there at that time) together with the Catholicks of the City, concurr'd with them in it, the former concluding</HI> Meletius <HI>to be of their Party, for which they had then &s;ome bottom: But</HI> Eu&s;e|bius <HI>and the Catholicks, were abundantly &s;atisfied of his adherence to the Doctrine of the</HI> Eternal Generation: <HI>and both de&s;igning to &s;erve them&s;elves by him, and to make u&s;e of one another in order to it, they appointed a Decree for his admi&s;&s;ion and enthronization to be drawn up, and having univer&s;ally, and unanimou&s;ly, &s;ub&s;crib'd it, it was by a common vote depo&s;ited in the hands of the great and eminently up|right</HI> Eu&s;ebius Samo&s;aten&s;is, <HI>as an approv'd Register, for its pre&s;er|vation, who&s;e fidelity will abundantly appear by and by. For, upon</HI> Meletius<HI>'s coming to</HI> Antioch, <HI>and po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ing him&s;elf of that See, by virtue of the Bi&s;hops Institution, and with the leave of</HI> Con&s;tantius, <HI>he immediately declar'd him&s;elf an</HI> Homoou&s;ian, <HI>and a&s;&s;erted the Eter|nal Generation, and the</HI> Trinity <HI>in</HI> Unity, <HI>in a Sermon in the great Church, on</HI> Prov. 8.22. The Lord po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ed me in the beginning, of his ways before his works of old: <HI>the Sermon is at large in</HI> Epi|phanius<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Adv. Here&s;. l. <HI>3.</HI> Tom. <HI>1.</HI> &sect; <HI>28.</HI></NOTE>, <HI>and well worth a &s;erious peru&s;al. Upon this,</HI> Con&s;tantius <HI>and his</HI> Arians <HI>were greatly provok'd and incen&s;ed again&s;t him, and their zeal was not le&s;s for his removal then it had been for his enthro|nization: in order to which, it being found nece&s;&s;ary that their De|cree which placed and confirm'd</HI> Meletius <HI>in the See, &s;hould be openly ca&s;&s;ated and null'd, otherwi&s;e it might remain in force against them, and be a bar to their Election of another Bi&s;hop, becau&s;e it &s;hew'd the Chair to be full (for a Super&s;emination was not acceptable) but this could not be done until</HI> Eu&s;ebius <HI>had deliver'd the Decree into their hands. For the&s;e con&s;iderations, I &s;ay,</HI> Con&s;tantius <HI>immediately &s;ent away a Me&s;&s;enger to</HI> Eu&s;ebius, <HI>with his Royal Commands, that he &s;hould deliver the Decree; to whom</HI> Eu&s;ebius <HI>replied, that he could not deliver up the common Decree, with which he had been publickly entru&s;ted, without the common con&s;ent of tho&s;e of his own Faith, who, as one man, had committed it to him. The Emperor being highly incen&s;ed again&s;t him for &s;uch his an&s;wer, &s;ends the Me&s;&s;enger back unto him with authority to demand the Decree, and if he per&s;i&s;ted in his refu&s;al, to cut off his right-hand; but the most holy Bi&s;hop was &s;o far from being fear'd and overaw'd to act again&s;t his con&s;cience, that when the Me&s;&s;enger declar'd the Emperors plea&s;ure, he reach'd forth, not only his right hand, but his left, and bad him cut of both, &s;aying, I will not deliver the Decree which is &s;o full a conviction of the</HI> Arian <HI>impiety, by rea&s;on of which greatne&s;s and con&s;tancy of mind, the Em|peror, being informed of it, much admir'd and commended him.</HI> For
<PB N="182" REF="106"> enemies are wont to admire the eminent virtues of their adver|&s;aries, being compell'd to it by their great action: As our Hi&s;torian there well ob&s;erves. And from the whole I &s;hall take no|tice.</P>
<P N="1">1. That a double, or <HI>&s;econd</HI> Election, and fixation in one and the &s;ame Chair, whil&s;t the Per&s;on, fir&s;t elected and fixed there, is alive, and not remov'd by his own con&s;ent, re&s;ignation, or &s;ome other due way, which the known Rules of the Church allow of; this proceeding (I &s;ay) was &s;o very foul in tho&s;e days, that the very <HI>Arians</HI> did &s;hrink in upon it, and knew not how to &s;ubmit into it: though<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">C. <HI>31.</HI> ibid. &s;upra.</NOTE> <HI>Theodorit</HI> gives this Character of them, that <HI>they readily broke every Law to e&s;tabli&s;h their impiety.</HI> And that <HI>the tran&s;gre&s;&s;ion of the Laws is the foundation of their bla&s;phemy.</HI> And though they afterwards elected <HI>Euzoius</HI> into <HI>Meletius</HI>'s Chair, and their Decree to the contrary was not deliver'd back unto them, it was not done to their own ea&s;e and &s;atisfaction, it <HI>remaining a manifest redargution</HI> of their haughty Hearts and and Actions:<NOTE PLACE="marg"><GAP DESC="foreign">.</NOTE> For which rea&s;on <HI>Eu&s;ebius</HI> did not deliver it into their hands, becau&s;e thereby they would have had an opportuni|ty to extingui&s;h it;<NOTE PLACE="marg">Cap. <HI>32.</HI> Ibid. <GAP DESC="foreign">.</NOTE> but rather cho&s;e to undergo the wrath and cruelty of <HI>Con&s;tantius:</HI> them&s;elves were not le&s;s &s;en&s;ible of it, ap|prehending it to be conviction upon them of their inju&s;tice. And, if the want of a legal cancelling their fir&s;t Votes, and Decree upon them, had not been a bar to their &s;ucceeding Election, nor laid it under the &s;candal of bringing a Bi&s;hop upon a full See, what was it could hinder <HI>Eu&s;ebius,</HI> but that he might have &s;ur|rendred his Paper? Or what needed the <HI>Arians</HI> to have been &s;o urgent in demanding it? The one &s;ure, is not to be conceiv'd, otherwi&s;e, to have expos'd him&s;elf to &s;uch mighty Sufferings, nor the other to have undergone, &s;o much &s;olicitude and trouble, as they did; and both he and they to have been &s;o ill advis'd in the carriage of that affair. Much le&s;s may we think <HI>Con&s;tantius</HI> would have &s;ent his Me&s;&s;enger twice, and &s;uch menaces along with him, concerning it, if there had not been a real purpo&s;e in it, and the effects had not been an&s;werable: but thus it hath al|ways been: and tho&s;e evil men who do not boggle to tread on the necks of Laws, when to &s;erve their own turn, will choo&s;e rather to keep them, and have the advantage of them, if it be con&s;i&s;tent with their own project, and their de&s;ign will be bet|ter managed by a compliance with them. It is hence al&s;o evi|dent, that the quitting a right by ce&s;&s;ion, re&s;ignation, or the
<PB N="183" REF="106"> legal cancelling it by what other ju&s;t ways it may be done, is not &s;o trifling and &s;aple&s;s a thing, as Doctor <HI>Hody</HI> has declar'd it to be for the &s;ecuring a <HI>Po&s;&s;e&s;&s;or</HI> in his See, and rendring his <HI>Po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion</HI> defen&s;ible to Mankind, though <HI>Constantius</HI> exil'd <HI>Me|letius,</HI> and his <HI>Arians</HI> rejected him notwith&s;tanding, and con&s;ti|tuted <HI>Euzoius</HI> Bi&s;hop of <HI>Antioch</HI> in his room. I mu&s;t beg leave to make a little &s;tand here, and caution Mankind on this occa&s;ion, that they do not wonder at the Vici&s;&s;itudes in our own, or o|ther Ages, e&s;pecially, when Good men are degraded, and In|famous men exalted, &s;ince <HI>Euzoius,</HI> who was a<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Sozomen l. <HI>4.</HI> c. <HI>27.</HI></NOTE> co-partner with <HI>Arius</HI> in his Here&s;ie, and cen&s;ur'd with him for it, to an abdi|cation, by the famous Council of <HI>Nicea,</HI> is now made Bi&s;hop of the Apo&s;tolical and Mother Church of <HI>Antioch.</HI> I know Do|ctor <HI>Hody</HI> will make this a Pre&s;ident, and infer from it, that the <HI>Supream Coercive Power</HI> having placed him in that See, and made him a <HI>Po&s;&s;e&s;&s;or,</HI> the illegality of the action was no bar, tho' his Ariani&s;m might be one, to his reception and recognition: but <HI>Meletius</HI> (who&s;e Fame was &s;o great, that all men ran to &s;ee his per&s;on, as<NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg">Ibid. &s;upra Theodorit l. <HI>2.</HI> c. <HI>31.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Sozomen</HI> &s;ays, and he is called <GAP DESC="foreign"> the oraculous and great <HI>Meletius</HI>) did not own the inference, nor <HI>Eu&s;ebius Samo&s;aten&s;is,</HI> who is not inferior to him in Character, in our Church Story: the integrity of the latter therein, is ap|plauded, even, by <HI>Con&s;tantius</HI> in his cool thoughts, though he made his Will his Law here, as he had done before in the Council of <HI>Millane:</HI> he found al&s;o the &s;ame &s;lavi&s;h intere&s;ted minds to comply with him. But I have abundantly given<NOTE N="&Verbar;" PLACE="marg"><HI>Cap.</HI> 1. <HI>Sect.</HI> 3 <HI>P.</HI> 18, 19, 21, 22.</NOTE> an account of <HI>Meletius</HI>'s behaviour in this affair, which is here abet|ted with the authority and practice of <HI>Eu&s;ebius Samo&s;aten&s;is.</HI> And though <HI>Eu&s;ebius</HI> did not atte&s;t the &s;ame with &s;ufferings, as <HI>Meletius</HI> did, he was not le&s;s prepared and ready for it, if they had been inflict<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">d upon him, as they were menaced.</P>
<P N="2">2. The next thing that I am to take notice of, from this Hi|&s;torical pa&s;&s;age between <HI>Con&s;tantius, Eu&s;ebius,</HI> and the <HI>Arians,</HI> is, our great Bi&s;hop of <HI>Samo&s;ata</HI>'s ju&s;t knowledge, zeal, and courage, in that he did not betray his tru&s;t, and give up the Church Rights, depo&s;ited in his hands, upon the demands, not only, of a Potent Faction, even <HI>irre&s;istible,</HI> in Doctor <HI>Hody</HI>'s Sen&s;e, but of <HI>Con&s;tantius,</HI> and his <HI>Sovereign Coercive Power,</HI> requiring them of him, with his drawn Sword in his hand. Our Savi|our has &s;o &s;eated the Sacerdotal Character, and Churches Rights, in the hand<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> of his Lieutenants, the Bi&s;hops, and, partly, in every
<PB N="184" REF="107"> Presbyter and Deacon, that it is their own treachery alone, can betray and &s;urrender them. The Arm of the mo&s;t Potent cannot &s;natch and extort them from them, unle&s;s their Wills concur, and, in their Per&s;ons, they become a&s;&s;i&s;tants to him in it: And as it is their honour, &s;o it ought to be their care, and earne&s;t Prayers, that they be found faithful. Again, the &s;ame Wi&s;dom of Chri&s;t our Saviour hath &s;o order'd his Oecono|my, and di&s;po&s;al of tho&s;e Church Gifts, that if his Prie&s;ts, with whom they are lodg'd, &s;hould make a general Apo&s;tacy, and &s;urrender, or rather, acquit and deve&s;t them&s;elves of them, nothing le&s;s then a new Fea&s;t of Pentico&s;t can re&s;tore and re&s;ettle them: The Edicts of Princes and Senates would be found in&s;ignificant in it; it would be their pre&s;umption, and their &s;in to attempt it. We are not then, to wonder that St. <HI>Paul</HI> &s;o earne&s;tly and &s;olicitou&s;ly advi&s;es <HI>Timothy</HI> in the&s;e words, <HI>O Timothe, depo&s;itum Cu&s;todi,</HI><NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">1 <HI>Tim.</HI> 6.20.</NOTE> <HI>O Timothy, keep that good thi<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">g which is committed to thy trust.</HI> And that he repeats and reinforces it in more words, but to the &s;ame effect: <HI>that</HI><NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg">2 <HI>Tim.</HI> 1.14.</NOTE> <HI>good thing</HI> which was <HI>committed to thee, keep by the Holy Ghost, which dwelleth in us.</HI> By which command we are not to doubt but that <HI>Eu&s;ebius</HI> was influenced: it reaching farther, in its de&s;ign then to <HI>Timothy</HI>'s Per&s;on: neither may any one that duly con&s;ults the two Epi|&s;tles, re&s;train that injunction to Doctrinals only. Surely, <HI>Timo|thy</HI>'s care of the Church, and due behaviour in it, in re&s;pect of the ruling part, and &s;ucce&s;&s;ion of the Bi&s;hops, is thence ex|pected. It is mo&s;t &s;ure, that the tru&s;t which <HI>Samo&s;aten&s;is,</HI> &s;o con&s;cientiou&s;ly pre&s;erved, was <HI>Meletius</HI>'s lawful right to the See at <HI>Antioch;</HI> in the keeping of which he was no le&s;s &s;olicitous and con&s;cientious, then he was to keep the <HI>Nicene</HI> Article of the the Eternal Generation. This is the Character which the two Emperors, <HI>Valentinian</HI> and <HI>Valens,</HI> give of the <HI>Homoou&s;ian</HI> Chri|&s;tians, in their Epi&s;tle to the <HI>A&s;ian</HI> Dioce&s;s, in <HI>Theodorit</HI>'s<NOTE N="&Verbar;" PLACE="marg">L. 4. <HI>c.</HI> 7.</NOTE> Church Hi&s;tory. <HI>They do not</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>refu&s;e to pay tribute according to the Laws; they do not oppo&s;e the Imperial Power, but holily and &s;in|cerely ob&s;erve, as well our Laws, as the Commands of the great God and King. Valens</HI> had not at this time commenced his per&s;ecution, but he had &s;een tho&s;e holy Bi&s;hops thoroughly try'd, and <HI>Eu&s;ebius Sam<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">&s;aten&s;is</HI> in particular, in the Reigns of <HI>Con&s;tantius</HI> and <HI>Julian;</HI> and found them, afterwards, the &s;ame in his own Reign, in which he gave them farther great tryals: their <HI>Active</HI> and <HI>Pa&s;&s;ive Obedience</HI> was abundantly demon&s;trated to his
<PB N="185" REF="107"> own Eyes, and the Sen&s;es of the whole World. Now <HI>Eu&s;ebiu<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"></HI> did not comply with <HI>Con&s;tantius</HI> (notwith&s;tanding the foremen|tion'd imperial Character of him) but with&s;tood his commands and threats, and refu&s;ed to deliver up the Credentials, and the Church Rights with them, though he had before obey'd his other Edicts, and deliver'd up the Temporalities of his Bi&s;hoprick into his hands, together with his Per&s;on, to be di&s;po&s;ed of at his Royal Plea&s;ure: of which I have already given<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>Cap.</HI> 1. <HI>Sect.</HI> 4.</NOTE> an account. And it is hence very plain, that the Civil and Spiritual Tru&s;t were two di|&s;tinct things, in the Sen&s;e of the then Empire: and the retaining the Spiritual, though again&s;t the Will of the Prince, was not reputed to be a breach of the former. Again, &s;ince <HI>Eu&s;ebius</HI> did not comply with <HI>Con&s;tantius</HI>'s Commands, and deliver the Church Credentials, it can be imputed only to his ju&s;t &s;en&s;e of Duty to his God, which, even in our pre&s;ent in&s;tance of it, tho&s;e An|cients believed them&s;elves equally, nay antecedently, obliged to have a regard unto, as well as to their Duty to their Prince. The good Bi&s;hop ju&s;tly apprehending, that his contributing, in the delivery of the Schedule, to the Settlement of <HI>Euzoius,</HI> in the full See of <HI>Antioch, Meletius</HI> being then alive, and not remov'd upon Church Terms, would be a Violation of the Law of God. Nothing el&s;e being &s;uppo&s;able, upon the known Principles of that Age, and the Principles of the true Church in all Ages, to have with-held him from obedience to <HI>Con&s;tantius</HI>'s commands, requiring his &s;urrender of the Papers, and the &s;ame con&s;iderati|ons only could ju&s;tifie him in it to the Chri&s;tian World.</P>
<P>Thus God's great and infinite goodne&s;s to his Church has rai&s;ed up men in all ages, who have a&s;&s;erted and maintain'd her Rights, upon every Emergency, even before Kings, who have &s;ometimes endeavour'd to era&s;e and &s;ink them. But we have more eminent Examples of this Nature, over and above this of <HI>Eu&s;ebius,</HI> in the Reign of <HI>Con&s;tantius,</HI> which was almo&s;t all over a Per&s;ecution: As, <HI>Athana&s;ius</HI> of <HI>Alexandria, Eu&s;tathius</HI> and <HI>Meletius</HI> of <HI>Antioch, Paulus</HI> of <HI>Constantinople, Paulinus</HI> of <HI>France, Eu&s;ebius</HI> of <HI>Vercellis, Dyoni&s;ius</HI> of <HI>Italy, Lucifer,</HI> of <HI>Sardinia, Hilary</HI> of <HI>Poicteirs, Ho&s;ius</HI> of <HI>Corduba, Liberius</HI> of <HI>Rome,</HI> which two la&s;t were highly &s;erviceable after their lap&s;es, upon their true repentance, as well as in their labours and &s;ufferings, whil&s;t they &s;tood. <HI>Baronius</HI><NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg"><HI>Ar.</HI> 359. <HI>Num.</HI> 83.</NOTE> &s;ays, that there were twenty in the Synod of <HI>Ariminum,</HI> which adher'd to the true Faith, and there|by pre&s;erv'd the rightful Succe&s;&s;ion, and Orthodox Doctrine.
<PB N="186" REF="108"> And the &s;ame mercy of God will always pre&s;erve a <HI>remnant of true I&s;raelites to be partakers of the afflictions of the Go&s;pel, according to the Power of God,</HI> and a&s;&s;ert his Truths, and his Churches Rights, in performing their Tru&s;ts, under the like Emergen|cies: <HI>being per&s;waded,</HI> as St. <HI>Paul</HI> was, <HI>that God</HI><NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">2 <HI>Tim.</HI> 1.12.</NOTE> <HI>is able to keep that good thing which is committed unto them against that day.</HI> And that he <HI>will be with them always unto the end of the World.</HI> Who&s;e God|line&s;s is not placed in the <HI>Gain,</HI> and little poor concerns in this Life. Who expect no other recompence here but the Ble&s;&s;ings and Peace of a good Con&s;cience, and that <HI>Euge b<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ne &s;erve, well done good and faithful Servant, at the appearing of our Lord Je&s;us Christ, which in his times he &s;hall &s;hew, who is the ble&s;&s;ed and only Potentate, the King of Kings and Lord of Lords, who only hath im|mortality, dwelling in that Light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath &s;een, or can See; to whom be Power ever|lasting,</HI> Amen.</P>
</DIV3>
</DIV2>
<TRAILER>FINIS.</TRAILER>
<PB REF="108">
</DIV1>
</BODY>
</TEXT>
</EEBO>
</ETS>
