REFLEXIONS ON A PAMPHLET ENTITLED, Remarks on the Occasional Paper, Numb. VIII. Relating to the CONTROVERSY BETWIXT Dr. HODY and Mr. DODWELL. And on another Entitl'd A Defence of the Vindication of the Depriv'd Bishops, Some time since seiz'd and suppress'd by the Government, and now Reprinted. With an Answer to a Third call'd Historical Collections concerning Church Affairs.

LONDON, Printed by T. Snowden, for Iohn Everingham, at the Star in Ludgate-street. 1698.

SIR,

THO' I do not at all know who are the Authors of the Occa­sional Papers, yet I think so well both of the Performance, and of the Prudence and Seasonableness of the Design, as to be highly pleased to find 'em so acceptable to you. Since I sent you the last, which was Numb. VIII, there is come out a small Pamphlet called Remarks upon it in a Letter to the Author. Which I here send you, not for any thing considerable, that I see in it, but to gratifie your Curiosity.

There are a few things in it which I think sit to take a little notice of: And the first is his blaming the Author of that Paper for charging the Vindicator of the deprived Bishops a little severely on the account of his Notions and Practice. The Remarker tells ye, that what the Vindicator has said and writ in defence of the Rights of the Clergy, might, one would have thought, have secur'd him from the Pen of a Clergy-man. The Temper of the Laity in this Age and Nation is such, that few of 'em appear very forward to defend even the just Privileges of the Clergy; and therefore when a Lay-man will write on their be­half, they ought to be so true to their own Interests, as at least to stand Neuters the mean while. If the Learned Vindicator has writ any thing in defence of the Rights of the Church, and the Just Privileges of the Clergy, we own our selves much obliged to him. But the Question is, what are their Rights, and what their Iust Privileges? Did I see one of the best of my Friends endeavour to Rob another on my account, I am a Knove if I stand Neuter; and a greater if I side with him to deprive another of what is rightfully his. I am oblig'd in Conscience and Equity to take his part, whom my Friend would Wrong, tho' it were for my own Profit. It is no less honourable in a Clergy-man, and no less his Duty, to vindicate the Rights of the Laity, when others would invade them, than it is in a Lay-man to vindicate the Rights of the Clergy, in opposition to Secular Usurpa­tions. And as it his Duty in the Point of Iustice and Honesty; so it is also in the Point of Wisdom and Prudence. For to grasp at more than one can well hold, what is that but the ready way to lose what one has?

[Page 2]I must here observe how little the Clergy are oblig'd to Mr. Dod­well for promoting this as one of their Rights and Iust Privileges, That for the sake of a Depriv'd Bishop, they ought to bring a Persecu­tion upon the Church, go a begging themselves, and ruine their whole Families. This is one of Mr. Dodwell's very great Obliga­tions, and the chief of all those which with so much Kindness and Zeal he endeavours to lay upon us. If it be one of the Rights of the Church, that a Bishop ought not on any account to be Depriv'd by the Secular Power (which I take to be utterly untrue) Mr D. were he truly our Friend, would allow us also this Privilege, That when­ever a Bishop is once so Depriv'd, and we cannot avoid it, we may peaceably submit to his Successor, to secure our selves from that Ruin, which must otherwise fall upon us, and the Church from such a Con­cussion, as would probably dissolve the whole Frame. If he is not pleased to grant, and to defend, this Right of the Church and Iust Pri­vilege of the Clergy, I must freely profess my Opinion of his Services: We have very little reason to thank him.

One notable piece of Service which the Learned Mr. D. has gene­rously done both the Clergy and the Church, I cannot here in Justice pass by; and that his bestowing so sublime and worthy a Character upon our first Reformers and Martyrs, particularly upon Arch Bishop Cranmer, in his Preface to that Book*The Preface was not seized, but was published by it self under the Title of The Doctrine of the Church of England concerning the Indepen­dency of the Clergy on the Lay-power. which was sometimes since seized and suppressed by the Government. A sort of Service, which the great­est Enemies of our Church and Reformation will thank him heartily for. Mr. Dodwell and Mr. Sanders will hereafter have the honour to stand both together as Witnesses against the Reformers and Martyrs of the Church of England. I desire it may be Recorded, and forever Remembred, That as one was an open Enemy, so the other, when he wrote those black Declamations, was no Member of our Church, but was actually engag'd in a Schism against it.

What Thanks or Respect can that Man deserve from the Church, who, professing himself one of its Members, does not study to maintain the Peace of it, but only to advance his own Notions; and prefers his Fondling Opinions to its Welfare and Tranquillity; and endeavours to fix a black Character on its worthy Reformers and Martyrs?

The mention I made of a Book of Mr. Dodwell's, which was seiz'd and suppress'd by the Government, brings me to consider another Para­graph [Page 3] of the Remarks, which wants a short Comment, and ought to be set in a True Light. I don't at all doubt (says the Remar­ker) but that the Government had good Reasons to seize and suppress the Pamphlet you mention. There were possibly some things in it, which the Person by whose order it was suppressed, did not think con­venient should be expos'd to Publick view. But yet since there was a Promise from one engag'd in the Controversie, That he would secure whatever should be printed in that kind; and since after it was seiz'd, and before it was suppress'd, there were offers made of striking out whatever was offensive, and printing those Sheets over again, it seems something hard it should after all be condemn'd to the Lining Trunks and Paper Boxes. I confess I should scarce have understood this Pa­ragraph, if it had not been explained by another Book of the Par­ty, call'd, Historical Collections concerning Church Affairs; In the Preface of which there are these Words: Why may we not suspect that these Papers will be seiz'd, as well as the Learned Vindicators Answer was t'other day, though Dr. Hody had dared him to make a Reply, and promis'd him the Liberty of the Press, in an unhand­som Letter which he sent him about August last, and it was the only stroke in it, which savoured of Decency and goods Manners: I am apt to think that so great a Rudeness has not been offer'd to so Lear­ned a Man before: And if the Dr. does not make amends to his Re­putation, by finding some ways that the Sheets may be restored, or by publickly declaring that it is not in his power to have it done, he must, his best Friends being Iudges, leave it in a very low and forlorn condition.

'Tis (you see) on Dr. Hody that this Charge chiefly falls; and this is that which determin'd me to trouble you with these Reflections. I shall give you, Sir, a full account of this matter, as I have had it from several, who are intimately acquainted with the Dr. and to whom he has frequently related it with the most serious and so­lemn Protestations. In their Conversation in the University, when Mr. D. excus'd his not Answering the Case of Sees Vacant, upon pretence that it was difficult to print, the Dr. told him, that if he would take care to leave out all manner of Reflections, which might offend the Government, he himself would assist him to the utmost of his power in the publishing of it: This he still pro­tests he would readily have done: And he thought at that time that it lay in his power to obtain a Connivance for it. Two years and half after The Case of Sees vacant was published, [Page 4] there came out a Pamphlet, Entitl'd, Discourses upon Dr. Bur­net and Dr. Tillotson, in which Dr. Hody is earnestly desired to reserve his Vindication of the Authority of the Civil Power in depriving a Bishop, no longer, that the most Learned and Pious Vindicator of the depriv'd Bishops, who had long expected it, might return an Answer both to that and the Case of Sees Vacant. 'Twas a great surprize to the Dr. to find after so long a time such a Reason as that given for Mr. Dodwel's not Answering his Book, remembring very well that in all the Conversation, which he had formerly had with him, he never pretended that Reason, but the difficulty of Printing; and having often told him, that he did not design to publish his Second Book, till he saw some Answer to the First. This was the occasion of his writing that unhand­some Letter to Mr. D. which the Collector speaks of, the design of which he wholly mistakes. He blam'd Mr. D. for pretending such a Reason, and that he might not pretend to it any longer, he gave him a fresh Assurance, that till he had seen some Answer to his First Book, he was resolved not to publish his Second. About half a Year after this, upon the Discovery of the intended As­sassination and Invasion, there being a search made for Conspirators, and Declarations, and the like, the Sheets of Mr. Dodwel's Book, fell accidentally into the Messengers hands. So far were the Go­vernours either of the Church or State, from ordering them to be seized, or the Dr. from contriving or desiring it, that neither one nor the other knew any thing at all of their being in the Press: Tho' Mr. D. has been pleas'd to report that it was by the Dr's means and procurement that his Book was seized. Three days after the seizure of it, the Dr. receiv'd a Letter from an unknown Person, and without a Name, concerning it; and this was the first notice he had that there was any such in the World. He was desired in the Letter to make use of his Interest to have the Sheets restored; and immediately he applied himself to such in whose power he thought it might be to obtain a Retrieve for them. But the Answer was, That it could not be done, because the Book was written against an Act of Parliament; And to restore it, when once seiz'd, would be in effect to License it. After he had procured a Copy, and had perus'd it, tho' he met with certain Strictures, that discovered some Rancour of Spirit, and prov'd the Writer to be a little too much under the power of Gall and Spite; [Page 5] yet they made no Impression; and a second time he signified his desire to have the Sheets remitted. But the Reason being such, his desire could not be granted: Which he took all occasions to let the Party know, by acquainting many with it. This, Sir, is a true and full account of the matter. And by this time you are able to judge, which of the two has acted generously and Fairly, Dr. Hody in endeavouring to Retrieve his Adversaries Book, or Mr. Dodwel in wrongfully accusing him. I cannot but here tell you, that I have had my self a sight of this Book of Mr. Dod­wels: And upon the perusal of it, I assure you, I think it very much for that worthy Gentlemans Reputation, that his Book was so seiz'd and not permitted to come abroad. You fancy now, that there was something very considerable in it; had you seen it, you would have been convinced, that the Learned Mr. D. is in this Dispute very far from being a formidable Adversary, and far from giving a just Answer to the Dr's Treatise: I hope they will be pleas'd to Reprint it, if they cannot at last Retrieve it. I am sure this is what the Dr. himself heartily wishes.

'Tis the Learned Mr. D. that, of all the Men of this Age, has lain under the Misfortune of writing a whole Book, and mistaking the Question: As it plainly appears he did when he wrote his Vin­dication against the Barocian M.S. Though in his suppressed Trea­tise he a little mends the Mutter, yet even in that too he fre­quently falls back into the very same Error. How unhappy he is in his Reasoning, is more than enough evident from that strange and sur­prizing lustance, which the Dr. takes notice of in pag. 14. of The Case of Sees Vacant; He pretends to justifie the present sepa­ration from our being Hereticks, and yet makes us Hereticks for this very Reason, because they separate from us. A more Illogical and Unweighed thing never dropt from the Pen of any Learned Writer! You do not at all doubt but that in his suppressed Treatise, he offers at some Excuse, or at least confesses his Frailty. No▪ No such matter. He takes no notice of it, but wisely passes that by, as he does other things of the same kind. You do not at all doubt but that he has endeavoured to defend himself in those several Points of History, for which the Dr. has impleaded him (as, if he had thought fit but to step a fost or two out of his way, he might have shewn him to be guilty of a great many Errors more:) No such thing as that neither, I assure you. All these he passes by as [Page 6] indefensible, without taking the least notice of them. All this I could have forgiven him, had I found in his Book any Answer to that which makes up the main part of the Dr's Treatise, The History of the Churches behaviour in such a Case as ours is. No, this too he perfectly gives up, and does not so much as pretend to answer it. Instead of all this, he is wholly taken up in disputing against a part of the Doctors first Chapter, and in laying down certain Conjectures, videtur upon videtur, (as you know his Way is) con­cerning Solomon and Abiath [...]r; which signifie nothing.

I would not be thought, from what I have said, to Insult and Triumph over that worthy Persons Failings and Infirmities. He that wisely and impartially looks down into Himself, will rather desire to Triumph over his own, than over other Mens Frailties. But I could not but take notice of these Omissions in Mr. Dodwels Reply, which render it so extreamly defective and insufficient.

I do not intend to weary you with a Confutation of what he has been pleased to say in that Treatise. Wrangling, you know, is infinite, and you cannot but be sufficiently acquainted with the Learned Mr. D's particular way of Thinking and Reasoning. 'Tis the unhappiness of some Mens Notions, that they are founded wholly on Guesses and Conjectures. They resemble a Pyramid inverted: When first you look upon them, they appear perhaps pretty great, but the more you look down towards the Foundation, the less and less they appear, till at last they end in a Point, which is next to Nothing, and is Something only in the Fancy.

I shall only take notice, that whereas the Dr. had urged, that to avoid so great an Evil as that of a Persecution, it is reasonable to submit to the present Possessor; in Answer to this Mr. D. denies a Persecution to be an Evil. If it be not, why then do they com­plain? But a little after Nature returns, and there he is pleased to contradict himself: That our late Common Body (says he) is now divided, that his late Brethren upon Principles of Conscience are now persecuted; if he could not otherwise believe, he would feel if he had the compassion of a living Member; if he had the Zeal of the Apo­stle, when he used that passionate Expression, Who is offended and I burn not? If he had any sense of the afflictions of Joseph.

In a word, since I have perus'd his Answer, I must needs say, I have been more satisfied, even than I was before, of the reasonableness of submitting in all such Cases of necessity. And it must be confess'd that [Page 7] the great insufficiency of the Answer of so learned a Man, adds much to the Credit of The Case of Sees Vacant.

So it happend, as I was writing those words, there was sent me Mr. Dodwell's Book just now Reprinted, with this Title, A De­fence of the Vindication of the Depriv'd Bishops; which is word for word the same with that which I have hitherto spoken of. I am glad, Sir, to find my wishes so soon and so happily answered. You will now be satisfied (for I have sent it here together with these Papers) that what I have said of it is true. You your self will see, what little reason the Dr had (if he were not of a Spirit far above such an Action) to endeavour to have it suppress'd.

And here for some time we will leave Mr D. and return to the Remarker. He tells ye, that as for the Learned Dr. Hody's share in this Controversie, it is certain he has said nothing in his long Book, which the most impartial and judicious of his own side can judge to be capable in any tolerable measure either to satisfie the doubtful, or convince those that are of the contrary opinion. Who those most impartial and judicious Gentlemen of the Dr's own side may be, the Remarker best knows. These are Words of Course, and they signifie only thus much, That he has nothing to say. How well the Case of Sees Vacant has been receiv'd by the most impartial, ju­dicious, and the greatest Men of his side, his Adversaries know but too well for their own ease and satisfaction. I shall here for the great honour of The Case of Sees Vacant, and the Author of it, produce you the Words of one of the most raging and envious of his Adversaries the Author of a Pamphlet Entitled, Considera­tions upon the Second Canon. Instead of lessening the Reputation of the Treatise and its Author, he has even against his will added much to their Credit. I had here concluded (says he) but as I was penning these few Considerations, News was brought me that after so long consulting and caballing, Stillingfleet-Hody was come abroad, laying about him like Goliah, knocking down no less than 6 or 7 at once, and making bolder Challenges than ever did that mighty Philistine. After a great deal of foaming Rudeness, with which he gives vent to his Gall and Envy, (such as the Dr is used to meet with from his Mild and Well-bred Adversaries, and which always falls back upon themselves) having laid down the Dr's Proposition and Opinion, he adds: Now this, tho' in other Words, is the main Principle which the Author of The Unreasona­bleness of the new Separation, founds his Discourse upon, by which [Page 8] any Man may guess at the Genius that runs through the whole Book. Again, I should wrong these few Considerations if I should further wander after a Treatise, in the contriving of which more Persons have been concern'd, than Mr. Hody's Name hath Letters, &c. What can be said more for the Dr's Honour and Reputation, than that his Adversaries cannot believe, but that his Book was compos'd by a long consulting and cabassing of the greatest Men of his side, and chiefly by one, who is by all acknowledg'd to have no Superior? Stillingfleet-Hody? I do not at all wonder, if the Dr has some inward Exultations upon so vast a commendation of his Book. Had the Title of Stillingfleet-M— been bestowed upon Me by my Adversaries on the account of any Book which I had written, I should have had, I believe, within me a certain Satisfaction, which, without a supernatural Assistance, would have mounted very near to something of a Fault. I am apt to believe the Dr will as long as he lives esteem this Nick-Name, as one of the most honourable Titles that ever can be given him, next to that of a Christian. I am sure I should, were I in his Case.

The Remarker goes on, concerning the second part of the Dr's Treatise: What shall we say to the Matters of Fact, those se­vere Things, as my Lord of Sarum is pleas'd to call them, that do not admit of Sophistry? What shall we admire most? The Doctors great Skill and Reading in Ecclesiastical History, or his wonderful Iudgment in producing so many Examples, some from the most degenerate times of Christianity, to prove only this, That in all Ages since the Empire became Christian, and the Profession of our Holy Religion was not only safe but honourable, there have been found some Men, who possibly to get or keep Preferment, have been guilty of unwarrantable Compliances. Can those many and Illustrious Examples, which the Dr. has produced in his Hi­story, be look'd upon by any Man of Sense and Probity, to be nothing but the Examples of some Men, who to get or keep Pre­ferment have been guilty of unwarrantable Compliances? The Ex­amples, which the Dr. produces, are not of some Men, but of Churches, general Councils, and the whole Catholick Church; not of one Age only, but of several Ages, in several Cases, and in extraordinary provoking Circumstances: Not of Men that to get or keep their Preferments would be guilty of unwarrantable Compli­ances, but of Men, who in other Cases most stoutly oppos'd their Emperors, and were ready to sacrifice all they had in the World [Page 9] to the honour of Religion. No; it is for Mr. Dodwel, and the Men of the Remarkers Party, to produce only some few Men: What sort of Men, they know: some Men, who through Crossness and ill Humour do not care tho' they rend the Church, and disturb'd the Peace of it: 'Twill be worth our while to look a little on those Examples, which the Dr. has produced, and see who these some Men were, who to get or keep their Preferments were guilty of such ill Compliances: Lest you should not have the Dr [...] Book by you, I shall take so much pains, as to draw out these ill Men be­fore you. The sight, I dare say, tho' it makes our Adversaries so apt to fall into Fits, will in you raise the highest Respect and Veneration.

He begins with Abiathar, the first High-Priest that appears to have been depos'd by the Lay-power; and observes, that after he was depriv'd by King Solomon, Zadok, who was put into his place, was received as the true High-Priest by the Jewish Nati­on, and his Services accepted of God. Mr. Dodwel's Evasion, that Abiathar was not the Supream High-Priest, but Zadock; is sufficiently confuted by the Scripture it self, which tells us, that Abiathar being depriv'd, Zadock was Anointed in his stead: Not to mention other things.

He has shewn, that in after Ages, when the High-priests were commonly depos'd by the bare Authority of the Secular Power, their Successors were readily acknowledged as true High-Priests, and that too, tho' in other Cases the Jews were at the same time most zealous Defenders of their Laws.

He has shewn that our Saviour himself, and his Apostles acknow­ledg'd and communicated with those, who succeeded such as were depos'd by the Secular Governours, as true High-priests. This our Saviour would never have done, if he had design'd that his Followers in after Ages should not do the same in Relation to their Bishops.

Had he shewn but only thus much; he had sufficiently vindi­cated the present Practice of our Church. But his History does not end here; He has also shewn, that the same was the Practice of the Church of Christ in all Ages, whensoever a Bishop, that was put into the place of another depos'd by the Civil Power, was known to be Orthodox, and otherwise unexceptionable.

He has shewn that P. Felix II. the first Orthodox Bishop that succeeded another depriv'd by the Secular Power, was receiv'd and [Page 10] own'd by all the whole Church who accounted him Orthodox, and is honoured to this day as a Saint; tho' Liberius his Predecessor, was not only depriv'd by the Secular Power, but by a Heretick, and for defending the Orthodox Faith.

He observes, that when Lucius was made Bishop of Alexandria in the room of Peter, whom the Heretical Emperor Valens had depriv'd; the Reason why he was rejected by the Orthodox Party, was only because he was an Arian, not because he succeeded ano­ther whom the Emperor had violently depos'd. The People having been nourished (says Theodoret) with the Doctrine of Athanasius, when they saw that quite contrary Food was offered them, kept off from the Churches.

He observes that Peter, the rejected Bishop, in the Epistle which he wrote to the Church-Catholick concerning his Deprivation, tho' he endeavours with a great deal of Rhetorick to set forth the Crimes of his Successor, and to excite in all the Church an Abhorrence of his Actions, yet he raises no Ob­jection against him on this account, because he was made Bishop in his place, whom the Emperor had violently de­pos'd.

Those Instances are of the 4th Age. He has shewn in the 5th, that S. Briccius Bishop of Tours, being violently depos'd and driven away by his People, tho' he did not give up his Right, but endeavoured to be restored, yet Iustinian and Armentius, who were successively put into his Place, were own'd by the Church as true Bishops of that See, and there was not any di­sturbance in the Church on his account: That Gregory the Hi­storian, who himself was Archbishop of that See, and afterwards a Saint, acknowledges them as true Bishops, and ranks them in the List of the Bishops his Predecessors: That St. Briccius himself, though he look'd upon himself to be still the Rightful Bishop, yet he own'd them to be true Bishops; and he gives Armentius the Title of his Brother; the Bishop of Tours.

He observes, that when Theodosius had got himself to be or­dained Patriarch of Ierusalem by Violence and Murder, in the room of Iu [...]enalis, who had never been at all depriv'd, the only Objection that the Great and Orthodox Abbot St. Euthimius, when urged to Communicate with him, was, That he had been guilty of many Murders; and was also a Heretick. His Answer was no more than this, God forbid that I should approve of his Murders and [Page 11] evil Opinions. He observes withal, that those Bishops, that had been ordain'd by the Usurper Theodosius, were never theless acknowledged by the Church as true Bishops, and if their Predecessors were not still living, were contained in their Sees.

He observes that Timotheus Aelurus being constituted Patriarch of Alexandria, in the room of Salofaciolus, whom Basiliscus the Here­tick, and withal a Vsurper, had depos'd, was rejected by P. Sim­plicius and Acacius Patriarch of C P. for this only Reason, because he was a Heretick and Parricide. When Simplicius had heard that Acacius had forbid Timotheus to enter into any of his Churches in the City of C P. he sent him his Thanks in these Words, without taking any Notice of Salofaciolus's Unjust and Uncanonical Deprivation, Thy constancy, says he, is praise worthy both in the sight of God, and in ours, in that thou wouldst not suffer that condemned Person to enter into any of the Churches of C P. not only because he was a Heretick, but only because he was a Parricide.

He has shewn, that Iohannes Talaias, the Orthodox Patriarch of Alexandria, being depos'd by the bare Authority of the Emperor Zeno, tho' after he was depos'd, he still laid claim to his Right, yet Mongus who was put in his place, was own'd as a true Bishop of that See by as many as accounted him no Heretick; particularly by Acacius, that great and brave Patriarch of C P. and his Successor Fravitas; as also by Martyrius Patriarch of Ierusalem, with all the Eastern Bishops in general. That the Bishops of Dardania and Calendion Patriarch of Antioch, in their Allegations against him, take no notice of his being put into the place of one so Depriv'd, but only that he was a Heretick. That Euphemius Patriarch of C P. and the Orthodox Party of Aegypt Communicated with him till they discovered him to be Heretical; then broke off from his Communion. That Simplicius himself, Pope of Rome, having received a Letter from the Emperor Zeno, touching his design to depose Talaias, was well enough satisfied, and nothing dis­pleased him, till he found that one, whom he accounted a Heretick, was designed his Successor. That the same Simplicius writing after­wards to the Patriarch Acacius, concerning the Deprivation of the He­retical Bishops, desires him to intercede with the Emperor, That either the rejected Orthodox Bishops might be restored, or at least new Orthodox Bishops created. Whether old ones or new ones was to him upon the matter indifferent, provided they were Orthodox. That P. Felix III, in his Synodical Epistles to the Emperor and Acacius, concerning Mon­gus's his Promotion, takes no notice at all of his being put into the [Page 12] place of one whom the Imperial Authority had depos'd, but only complains of his Heresie. That the same P. Felix in another Epistle, in which he Excommunicates the Patriarch Acacius, gives this as the chief Reason for it, because he communicated with the Heretick Mongus. And tho' at the same time he charges him with other Crimes, yet he does not obj [...]ct it to him as a Crime, That he Communicated with one who was put into the place of another Unsynodically depriv'd. Lastly, That Talaias himself did not think it Unlawful for the People and Clergy of Aegypt to acknowledge another for their Patriarch, pro­vided he were a Professor of the Orthodox Faith. He fled, says Eva­grius, to Rome, and raises there very great stirs, affirming, what? not that another could not be own'd in his stead, because he had not been Synodically depriv'd, but that it was for his defending the Council of Chalcedon, that he had been depos'd; and that he, that was put into his place, was an Enemy of that Council.

He observes, that Calendion the Patriarch of Antioch, being de­pos'd without any Synod by the same Emperor, they that refus'd to acknowledge Gnapheus, his Successor, pleaded nothing at all for their so doing but his Heresie.

He shews that Macedonius the Patriarch of C P. being violently depos'd by the Heretical Emperor Anastasius, because he refused to condemn the Council of Chalcedon, his Succsseor Timotheus was by all, that did not reckon him a Heretick, acknowledg'd as a true Patriarch; as particularly by the two great B shops and Saints, Elias and Fla­vianus Patriarchs of Ierusalem and Antioch, tho' at the same time they declared Macedonius his Deprivation to be null and invalid, and could not be induced by any Threats of the Emperor to subscribe to it. That the Orthodox Party of C P. Communicated generally with him, and that he was acknowledged by the Orthodox Monks of Palestine, no less than 10000 in number, tho' they too at the same time condemn'd what was done against Macedonius as invalid. That the great Abbot of Studium refused to be consecrated by him, whilst he thought him a Heretick, but assoon as he had an assurance that he was not so, without the least scruple concerning the Unjust and Unsy­nodical Deprivation of his Predecessor, he readily yielded to be con­secrated by him.

He further observes, that Flavianus Patriarch of Antioch, being violently depos'd by the same Heretical Emperor, the only Reason assigned by the Orthodox Party, why they would not communicate with his Successor Severus, was his being an Enemy to the Orthodox Faith.

[Page 13]He likewise shews, that Elias Bishop of Ierusalem being depriv'd by the same Emperor, his Successor Iohn, because he prov'd to be an Asserter of the true Faith, was by all the Orthodox readily acknow­ledged; by all the People of Ierusalem, tho' they extreamly hated him, as looking upon him to be one of the chief Instruments in Elias's Expulsion; by those two great Saints, Theodosius and Sabas, with the rest of the Monks and Inhabitants of Palestine; by Io. Cappadox Patri­arch of C P. with all the Bishops that were under him: That his Name was preserved in the Diptycks of the Church together with that of Elias, and that he was honoured as well as he, by that Church as a Saint: That Cyrillus of Scythopolis, speaking of him, says, he was adorned with a Divine Prudence; and that in the Acts of the Council Sub Mennâ, he is stiled more than once, Archbishop of Jerusalem of holy Memory.

You may see it there prov'd, that tho' St. Silverius Bishop of Rome, was so violently and unjustly depos'd by Iustinian's General Belisarius, yet his Successor Vigilius was own'd as true Bishop of Rome by the whole Catholick Church, particularly by the 5th general Council; and is reckon'd by all to this day as one of the true Popes.

That tho' Macarius Bishop of Ierusalem, was depos'd by the bare Authority of the Emperor Iustinian, yet his Successor Eustochius was own'd as a true Patriarch by the same 5th general Council, and the whole Church Catholick.

That after that, when Eustochius himself was depos'd by the same Authority, Macarius being restor'd, was acknowledged again as a true Patriarch.

He shews you, that tho' Eutychius Patriarch of C P. was so unjustly deposed by the Lay-power, and tho' he still laid claim to the See, yet his Successor Iohn, was received by all the Orthodox, particularly by the Clergy and People of that City, tho' at the same time they exceed­ingly lov'd Eutychius, and accounted him unjustly depriv'd: That Eustratius, who wrote the Li [...]e of Eutychius, though he was a great Enemy to the Patriarch Iohn, and speaks very angrily of him, yet he no where reflects on any for owning him as a true Patriarch: That the Emperors Iustin and Tiberius, tho' they had a great Veneration for the rejected Eutychius, yet they did not think themselves obliged to re­store him by deposing his Successor, but stayed till his Successor was dead, and then restored him: That Eutychius himself, tho' he never gave up his Right, but look'd upon himself as the rightful Patriarch, yet he did not break the Peace of the Church, but continued to Communicate with those that acknowledged his Successor.

[Page 14]He shews you likewise, that tho' St. Anastasius was depos'd from his See of Antioch by the Emperor Iustin, without any Synodical Procedure; and tho' he never gave up his Right, but always look'd upon himself as the Rightful Patriarch, yet this Successor Gregory was unanimously re­ceiv'd by the whole Church, by four of that Age, who are honour'd by the Church with the Veneration of Saints, St. Symeon Stylites, Saint Gregory the Great, St. Eulogius Patr. of Alexandria, and St. Iohn Nestutes Patr. of C P. That St. Gregory the Great communicated fr [...]ely with him, tho' he own'd at the same time that St. Anastasius was invalidly Depriv'd, and that he was still the Rightful Patriarch: that he gives Anastasius the Title of Patriarch of Antioch, and yet at the same time own'd his Suc­cessor Gregory to be a true Patriarch of the same See, and gives him the same Title, looking on the one as the Rightful Patriarch, and acknow­ledging the other as the Patriarch in Possession. He sends a Synodical Epistle to 'em both together, with this Title, which is very remarkable; Gregorius Ioanni Episcopo C P no, Eulogio Alexandrino Gregorio Antiocheno, & Anastasio Patriarchae Antiocheno à paribus. And this is likewise ob­servable that the Patr. Anastasius is placed the last of all, and after Gregory, who stands in his proper place, because he was a Patriarch only de jure, and not in Possession. And here I shall transcribe those words, which Dr. Hody observes, of the Learned Annotator on P. Gregory's Epistles; Non satis hoc advertere videntur, qui ad summos juris apices de re qualibet decernentes, Schismatibus & contentionibus viam parant zelo PRAECI­PITI NEC SATIS CAUTO.

The Doctor's History adds, that when St. Martin Bishop of Rome was violently Depos'd by the Emp. Constance because of his adherence to the Orthodox Faith, his Successor Eugenius was receiv'd by all as a true Pope. And tho' he was put into the place of one so Depos'd, and who never had given up his Right; yet he's honour'd by the Church as a Saint. A Saint is Depos'd, and a Saint accepts of his place. And so far was that holy Man St. Martin, from thinking it unlawful for his Clergy and People to submit to another Bishop, that when he heard that there was another constituted in his Room, he offer'd up to God his prayers both for Him and his People, that their hearts might be established in the Orthodox Faith.

To these he adds many more Examples of the following Ages, to shew that this was universally the Practice of the Catholick Church. He shews how great and how worthy a Person the Patriarch Photius was, who ac­cepted of Ignatius's See, whom the Emp. Michael had unjustly Depos'd: And observes, that the Metropolitans of the Province of CP. tho' they [Page 15] own'd that Ignatius was unjustly depriv'd, and had still a great honour for him, and desired he might be restor'd, yet because the Emperor would not suffer it to be done, they peaceably yielded to Necessity, and submitted to the present Possessor.

Such as these are those Sacred Instances, with which Dr Hody has ob­lig'd us. He has also shewn us, that the same was the practice of the Antient Church whensoever any Bishop was unjustly Depriv'd by an Uncanonical or Heretical Synod, if their Sentence was enforced by an uncontroulable Authority of the Secular Power.

By this time you see what those some Men are, who, to get or keep their Preferments were guilty of such Compliances.

Let us hear now what is said by a very great Pre­late of our Church concerning this History of the Drs, Note: Bishop of Sarum's Vind. p. 52. 146, &c. and the Instances he has given. ‘Dr Hody says he, has fully ended the Argu­ment that he had begun, from the Practice of the Church; and that in so convincing a Manner, that matter of Fact seem'd not capable of a clearer proof. But the not answering his Book, is now excus'd upon this pretence, Because he had promised another Treatise, Of the Power of the Magistrate in such Cases; which he has not thought necessary to enter upon, till he sees what is said to his Book, in which he has [...]ully concluded the Argument upon which the Dispute fi [...]st began: And the not publishing this, is made an excuse for their not answering the other. We know the true Reason why it is not answered is, because it cannot be answered. M [...]n may wrangle on eternally in Points of Speculation; but Matters of Fact are severe things, and do not ad­mit of all that Sophistry. 'In another place, says the same great Man; We challenge them to shew us where ever a Schism was formed upon the Lay-Deprivation of a Bishop, even when the grounds that it pro­ceeded on were visibly unjust, if the Faith of the Church was not pre­tended to be concerned in the Matter. — The Intruders into the High­Priesthood under the Iewish Dispensation, and the many Instances in Church-History, that Dr. Hody has cleared beyond a possibility of de­nying the Matter of Fact, are so express and full on our side, that their avoiding to answer them, is plainly a giving up the Cause. Their leaving the general Argument from the constant and uninterrupted Practice of the Church, and betaking themselves to the Methods of Slander and Defamation, is such an evident indication of a bad Cause and of a worse Management, that it is not possible but that the generali­ty of indifferent Men will soon discern how weak their Reasons, and how strong their Passions are. They have in all their other Writings built [Page 16] too much on the Authority and Practice of the Church to be able with any shame to reject this Argument, and to say that they ought to be govern'd by Rules and not by Examples.

We must here take our leave of the Remarker, and return again to the Learned Mr. Dodwel. It is certain that these Words of the Bishop of Sarum, and the challenge he gives them to Answer Dr. Hody's Book, was that which awakened him, and put him upon publishing those Papers which were casually seized, and are now Reprinted.

It was necessary (they saw) that something should be published, that at least might be called an Answer: and they knew that that Name alone would do at least some good, since the greatest part of Men look no deeper than the Title. The challenge is to Answer the History; and yet not a word in Mr. Dodwel's Answer, concerning those Instances of the Practice of the Church, which the Dr. principally insists on. As I have already said, he does not so much as pretend to Answer it. And what is this avoiding to Answer it after such a challenge from so great a Man, but more plainly a giving up the Cause?

Mr. Dodwel's Talent is History; And if a Man of his Learning and Diligence, is forced to give up the Cause, as it plainly appears that he is, we know not from whom to expect it. As St. Austin says of St. Ierome, Quod Hieronymus nescivit, nullus mortalium unquam scivit: so say I of the worthy Mr. Dodwel; What he cannot do in a matter of History, and after so long a time (it is now somewhat more than five Years since The Case of Sees Vacant was published) the rest of the Party, tho' they are some of them Men of great Abilities and Learning, will not think it a disparagement to themselves, if we conclude it cannot be done.

I cannot but take notice that He is so far from undertaking to Answer the Dr's History, that he presumes to tell the World, that the Dr him­self does not look upon those Instances, which he has produced, to be of any considerable Authority; that the Dr. himself does not value 'em. What? The Dr himself not value the Instances which he has produ­ced! This must needs have been great News to him. Lest you should suspect I might possibly mistake Mr. Dodwel's meaning, I shall give you here his own words. The Dr. (says he) professes beforehand his own unwillingness to be concluded by such Instances as himself has produced, tho' they should appear to be against him. Why so, if there had been any reason that he should have been concluded by them. Why so, if he did not thereby own that the Reasons given by the Vindicator against the [Page 17] Argumentativeness of such Facts The Vindication excepts against ex­amples for the de­priving of Bishops by the Lay-power, not against such ex­amples as the Dr urges, which are on­ly for a quiet sub­mission. But Mr D. frequently con­founds the two di­stinct Questions. were solid and concluding. And how can he find in his heart to insist principally in his following Book on that very kind of Facts, which he has acknowledged so unsafe to be relied on in his Preface? He cannot pretend to argue ad Hominem, when the Vindicator had so expresly enter'd his Exceptions against that whole Argument. He cannot do it in his own Person, when he professes himself unwilling to stand by the Consequences of it. And how can he have the confidence to obtrude that upon us, which he does not believe himself?

What ground (in the Name of God!) could he have for all this strange Talk? He cites in the Margent these words out of the Dr's Preface: Should our Adversaries be able to produce such an example (as I think they will never be able) 'twill advantage their Cause but little, especially if it be one of the later Ages, since it is not agreeable to the Practice of the Church in general. Is it really Mr Dod­wel's mistake, this? Or did he intend to impose upon his Reader? For my Life I cannot imagine how it was possible for a Man but of a com­mon Capacity to be guilty of such a Mistake. For all those Examples of the Church's peaceable Submission to the present Possessor, in so many several Ages, which are prov'd in The Case of Sees Vacant, the Dr challenges Mr Dodwel and his whole Party (and again the same challenge we here give them, and desire they would take notice of it) to produce him any one single Instance from the time of Aaron, the first High-priest of the Jews, to this very day, of a High priest disown'd by the Jews, or a Bishop disown'd by the generality of the Catholick Church, for this Reason, Because put into the place of another de­posed by the Civil Authority. And then he adds those words which you have read. By which it is as clear as the Sun at high Noon, that his meaning was no other than this, That since the present Practice of the Church of England is warranted by the general Practice of the Church Catholick, our Adversaries cannot be justified or excus'd by any one Instance on their side, if they could produce one; especially if it were one of the later and more degenerate Ages. If the Dr does not look upon one Instance, and that too in the more degenerate times, to be conclusive against the general Practice of the Church, and in the purer and more Learned Ages; does he therefore not esteem the uni­form Practice of the whole Church in general, to be Conclusive? To conclude this point, and to satisfie Mr. D. how willing the Dr. is to [Page 18] be concluded by such a constant Vniformity of Practice in the Church, I have leave to tell him, That he prefers the Example of the Church, which is so clearly made out in his Book, to the Iudgment and Exam­ple of ten — tho' I have leave to tell him, yet I will not say how many Vindicators.

The Question betwixt Dr Hody and Mr. Dodwel is this; Whether our Practice, or the Practice of the Party, be conformable to that of the Catholick Church in Ancient times. 'Tis expected that Mr. D. should either prove all the Instances which the Dr has produced to be false, or produce as many and as good on his own side. If he cannot do this, much more if he cannot produce so much as one on his own side, whatsoever he publishes with the Title of an Answer, will be nothing but a Publick Declaration, That they are not able to justifie themselves.

Time was, as Mr D. well knows, when the Practice and Example of the Church was of greater Authority with him. When the Bishops were first depriv'd, and their Sees fill'd, all places that were honour'd with Mr Dodwel's presence, as well publick as private, rung aloud of Examples. I have been often told by such as were at that time at Ox­ford, and did themselves the honour to be often in Mr. Dodwel's com­pany, that till Dr Hody published his Baroccean Treatise, Mr Dodwel constantly appeal'd to the Example and Practice of the Church. It was this, as I am very well assur'd, that first put the Dr upon publi­shing that Treatise. As soon as that was done, then the usual Plea was quite alter'd. Mr D. who before was so full of his History and Examples, begins now not to esteem them. And The Case of Sees Vacant, when that was published, made him utterly out of love with them. He is now for Rules, not Examples: And he has good Reason for it; for Rules he makes of his own, but Examples he cannot.

When The Case of Sees Vacant first came out, it was very well known, that Mr D. and his whole Party presently fell upon a nice Examination of it. I know my self a very intimate Friend of Mr Dod­wels, who examined the Quotations of a Chapter or two for him. Who has freely acknowledged, That he could not find any thing but what was rightly cited, and fairly represented. Had the History been found wrong, the Examples and Precedents of the Church had been still looked upon by the Party as very good things: But their great fault is, They all make against them. The Case is plainly this; We are so much in love with our own Notions, that we will not value any thing, no not the Authority of the Catholick Church it self, in opposition to them.

[Page 19]Of a piece with his other mistakes (so I chuse to call them, rather than disingenuitie [...]) is that which he tells his Reader in several places in his last Treatise, that Dr Hody owns the Invalidity of all Lay-depri­vations. Tho' the Dr had expresly told him in his Preface, that he reserv'd the Vindication of the Authority of the Civil Power in such Cases for a particular Treatise. I grant at present (says the Dr) that all Lay deprivations are Invalid. The Learned Mr D. has (it seems) forgot the difference between dare and concedere. It was not the Dr's business in The Case of Sees Vacant, to concern himself with the Autho­rity of the Civil Power. His only business in that Treatise was to assert the Reasonableness of submitting to the present Possessor, whether the other were validly depriv'd or not, where the Power that depriv'd is irresistible, and the Possessor otherwise unexceptionable. It is easie to observe, how desirous Mr D. and the Men of his side are, to have another Cause call'd, and to shift off that weight thet lies so pressingly upon them. But to this the Dr keeps them. And I think he does very well to hold them fast where he has them. To what purpose should we, who were not concern'd in the Deprivation of the Bishops concern our selves so much about that Question, Whether it be lawful for the Civil Magistrate to deprive a Bishop or not? since whether that be law­ful or not, this at least we know to be lawful, The acknowledging the present Possessor, if on all other accounts unexceptionable Whether it were the Doctrine of the Church that Bishops may be depriv'd by the Lay-power for Political Crimes, or not, we are not obliged to know. 'Tis enough for us that we know, that this at least was the Doctrine of the Church (and we know it from it's constant and uniform Practice throughout all Ages) That when once they are depriv'd (tho' never so unjustly) and we cannot avoid it; it is lawful for peace-sake to own the Possessor. Dr Hody may publish, if he please, his Vindication of the Authority of the Civil Power, for the sake and satisfaction of those, who concur'd in the Deprivation of the Bishops: But we of the lower Form, who were not at all concern'd in the matter, we want no such Treatise to justifie our Practice: Our Practice is sufficiently justified by what he has already written. I will read it, if it comes out, as a mat­ter of Speculation. If it can have any influence on my Practice, it will be only to vindicate those, by whom the Bishops were depriv'd, against the Ragingness of such as discharge their Choler in so liberal a manner against them; which always turns back on themselves.

I ought not here to omit, that that Book, which I mentioned above, called, Historical Collections, &c. was design'd as a part of an Answer to [Page 20] The Case of Sees Vacant. Its business is to shew, that the Catholicks of the fourth Age, who refused to Communicate with Felix Bishop of Rome, who was put into the place of Liberius, and with Gregory and George of Alexandria, who were substituted in the place of St. Athanasius, and with Meletius of Antioch, who succeeded Eustathius; did not refuse to acknowledge them on the account of Heresie, but because their Pre­decessors had been Unjustly and Vncanonically thrust out. And how is this prov'd? Why, they tell us, that the Catholicks of that Age did not look upon the Eusebians as Hereticks, but continued to Communicate with them till after the Deprivation of St Athanasius, &c. and therefore when after that, they refused to Communicate with them, it must be upon the account of the Uncanonical Deprivations and Successions. I shall not wander after the foul-mouth'd and raving Collector in his long wild Maze of Impertinencies, but shall give a full Answer to the whole in half as many Words as he has trifled away Pages.

The Eusebians of that Age, who are commonly called Semi-arians, were by some of the Orthodox accounted more tollerable, by others downright Arians and Hereticks, though they sometimes pretended to imbrace the Nicene Faith. Sometimes the same Catholicks entertained a favourable Opinion of them; at other times, according as their Heresie shewed it self more visibly in their Practice, they declined their Communion. This was generally the case after the Persecution and Ex­pulsion of St Athanasius. 1. Athanasius himself calls the Eusebians, his Persecutors, every where,(a)Apolog. p. 692. Episcopis prope no­naginta pulsis Ec­clesiis (que) Professoribus Arii traditis [...]. 693. ea narranda existimo, ut tua Christianissima cura, & pietas in Deum, certò intelligat, criminationes mei calumnias (que) non alio fine institutas esse, q [...]àm ut nobis ab Ecclesi [...]s expulsis, suam impietatem in Ecclesias immitterent [...]. Nam posteaquam ex veris senibus (que) Episcopis, alii in exilium deportati essent, alii metu fugati, ethaici homines Catechumeni, primarii (que) decurionum, &c. (ad spem Episcopatûs) pro pià CHRISTIANORVM fide ARIANISMVM profitebantur. [...]. Ecce tertia denuo allabitur fama, scriptum fuisse Tyrannis Auxu [...]is, ut me ubicun (que) etiam apud barbaros perquirerent, populos (que) & Clericos ad communionem Arianae HAE­RESIS cogerent. 698. [...], &c. 699. Quo tempore talia scelera ab ARIANIS designabantur, nihil à me erratum: [...]. — Quid maluiffes à me fieri in tantâ saevitie calumniatorum, nihil nisi necem meam omnibus rationibus molientium, anne id quod scriptum est? Abscondere paulisper, ut interea temporis & S [...]cophantas deprehensos HAE­RETICOS esse constaret, [...]. Apol. pro fugâ p. 719 Pro suâ HAERESI, bello (que) in Christum, non CHRISTIANI amplius, sed ARIANI appellantur. Cum igitur hoc sint animo & professione, quid miri est, sieos, qui in eorum sententiam non concedunt ne (que) impiam eorum HAERESIN plausibus prosequuntur, ad necem quaerunt? [...]. 703. prae­clari Episcopi, veritatis praecones in exilium profligantur, n [...]llâ pro [...]sus de causâ, nisi quod non astipulati sint Arionorum HAERESI, nec illorum calu [...]niis adversus nos fictis subscribere voluerunt; [...]. Alia vide passim cousimilia, p 670. C. 807, 812, 827. per totam deni (que) ad Solitarios Epistol [...]m. Ibid. p. 815. Eusebiani igitur videntes HAERE­SIN suam succumbere, & Romam & ad imperatores Constantinum & Constan­tium contra Athanasium scribunt: sed quia ab Athanasio missi legati mendacia eorum refutabant, ab Impp. cum pudore rejecti sunt; [...], &c. Arians and Hereticks. So does the Synodical [Page 21] Epistle(a)Ap. Athan. p. 723. [...]. 728. [...]. Nonne Eusebi­ani studio Arianismi ad id concilium perrexerunt, reliquis ejusdem secum senten­tiae adductis? Nonne & nos contra eosdem homines eo nomine quod Arianicae Opinionis essent, scripta evulgavimus? 733. [...]. 737. [...], &c. 738. Quod ideo faciunt, ut impia Arianorum HAERESIS introducatur, &c. [...]. of the Bishops of Egypt, Lybia and Pentapolis; and that of the(b)Epist. ad Episc. Aegypti ap. Athan. 756. non lignotum id nobis, antesignanos infelicis Arianorum HAERESIS, mulra & gravia in Ecclesiam, molitos esse; [...], &c. Ea enim eorum & vafrities fuit semper (que) hujus pestiferi propositi fuere, ut omnes ubi (que) Orthodoxae fidei homi­nes & Catholicae Ecclesiae doctrinam à patribus traditam servantes exagitarent & per­sequerentur, &c. Epist. ad Ecclesiam Cathol. Vide p. 766. Council of Sardica: not to mention the Writers of the following Ages.

The Collector was aware, that the Eusebians have every where the Title of Arians; and therefore he tells you, that the Arianism of the Eusebians was generally interpreted to amount to no more than their receiv­ing a false succession of Bishops. On this the main hinge of his whole Book turns. The Margent will shew him to have been extreamly care­less in his Reading; and that they were therefore call'd Arians because they were believed to have embraced the Heresie and Opinions of A­rius. Athanasius in one place has these words, The Eusebians seeing their Heresie going down, wrote to Rome, and to the Emperors Constantine and Constans against Athanasius, but the Legates which were sent by Athana­sius confuted their Lies, and they were rejected with shame by the Empe­rours. Thus he makes them to be Hereticks even before he was depo­sed. 2. Gregory, who was put into his place when he was first expell'd, is well known to have been a notorious Heretick. So [Page 22] he himself(a)Epist. ad solit. p. 816. nullâ aliâ de causâ, quam ut eos ad pattes ARIANO­RUM, & Gregorium recipiendum compellerent. Athanasias autem non ignarus HAERETICORUM furoris, &c. [...]. 817. Verum nihil illi curae erat, quam ut eorum jussa à quibus missus erat, adimpleret, & HAERESIN stabiliret, [...], eas ob causas stult [...]s ille homicida, carnifex & contumelicius, fraudulentus & in summâ Christi hostis factus est. witnesses of him; as does also(b)Cont. Arianos: Cum in Alexandriâ in Arianâ Ecclesiâ, cui Gregorius praeerat, presbyter esse caepisset. St. Hilary. The Council of Sardica (c)Sed quia eorum sycophantiae, vincula, caedes, verbera, falsae Epistolae, contu­meliae, virginum denudationes, exterminationes, evastationes, incendia Ecclesia­rum, transultus (que) à minoribus civitatibus ad majores paraecias, &, quod gravissi­mum est, denuo per eosdem excitata contra rectam sidem infelicissima Arianorum Hae­resis reticenda non fit; ( [...]) ideo nos dilectos fratres, & comministros nostros Athanasium, &c. innocentes & puros pronunciamus, literis ad singulas paraecias missis, ut populi cujus (que) Ecclesiae cognoscant sui Episcopi sinceritatem, eum (que) pro Episcopo & habeant & expectent; istos autem more luporum in horum Ecclesias invadentes, Gregorium in Alexandriam, &c. eos ne (que) Episcopos appellent, ne (que) ullam cum eis communionem habeant, aut eorum literas recipiant aut vicis­sim Mittant. p. 765, 766. de­clares him no Bishop, and forbids the Catholicks to give him that Title, and to have any manner of Communication with him, and that partly for his other enormous Crimes, but principally because he and his Party promoted the Arian Heresie, against the right Faith. And this is the Reason they give for their restoring Athanasius, and the rest that were ejected by the Eusebians. Athanasius ob­serves(a)Ep. ad Solit. p. 820. that that Council were so far from calling him a Bishop, that they did not think he was worthy the name of a Christian. 3. George of Laodicea, who was constituted his Successor upon his second Expulsion, had been formerly(b)Synodus Aegyp. in Epist. ap. S. A­than. p. 728. [...]; degraded from his Orders as an Arian, by Alexander Bishop of Alex­andria, and had afterwards been deposed from his Bishoprick of Laodicea, and again d [...]graded by the Sardican Council (c)p. 766. Ur [...]aci­um, Valentem, &c. & Georgium, per me­tum huc ab Oriente non audentem venire, sed tamen à beato Alexandro depositum, tum quia istè & caeteri illi sectatores sunt Arianicae rabiei ( [...]) tum ob reatum crimi­num omnes sacrosancta Synodus communi calculo exauctoratos omnino ab officio Episcopatûs summovet: Decrevimus (que) eos non modo Episcopos non esse, sed ne dignos quidem fidelium communione. Imo quia separant Filium à Patre, & Ver­bum à suo Patre alienant, aequum esse, eos ab Ecclesiâ Catholicâ separari, & alienos indignos (que) haberi Christiano nomine. Sint vobis igitur Anathema, eò quòd verbum Veritatis adulteraverint. [...]. as an Arian, for dividing the Father from the Son in the Holy Trinity, [Page 23] and adulterating the Word of Truth: and is every where branded as an(a)St. Athan. de Synodis Arim. & Se­leuc. Georgii verò Cappadocis, Alexan­drinâ civitate ejecti, nulla mentio ratioq, habenda est, fed pro temporis conditione, nomen Christiani si­mulantis, & quaestum religionem arbitran­tis: ac proinde nemo de illo conqueri de­bet, fi in fide labatur homo, qui ne (que) scit de quibus loquitur, ne (que) de quibus asseverat. Arch-Heretick. (b)Libello ad Constant. pro Athanasio: Consacrilegum tuum Georgium, & nolentibus ejus ma [...]ulari sacrilegio, tantas contumelias, tantas (que) intuleris poenas, ut plurimos proscripseris — & hodie non desinas ea facere, blas­phemiam tuam & Georgii suscipere nolentibus, quae irati hostes immanissimi barbari vix faciant. — Nunquid potest Deus esse cum inimico suo Georgio? nunquid ei quem non ordinaverit, quem non elegerit, potest esse propitius? Talis est Georgius qualis suerat Arrianus (leg. Arrius) quales qui sunt Va­lens & Ursacius, vel ad quem me destinasti Germanensium, Adoxius: ne (que) enim possent nisi de spinis spinae procedere. Haec ita se habere ex Actibus ipsius Georgii legens contestationes Alexandrinorum poteris colligere. — Cohaereticum tuum Georgium mittis successorem. Lucifer Calari­tanus tells us, that the Catholicks were so cruelly persecuted by the Emperor Constan­tius, for what reason? was it because they refused to own a Bishop, who was put into the place of another Uncanonically depriv'd? No, 'twas because they would not comply with George's Blasphemy. And P. Iulius (c)Epist. ad Antiochenos ap. Athan. p. 751. [...]. tells us concerning the former Persecution, that it was brought upon the Orthodox for no other reason but because they would not Communi­cate with Gregory and his ARIANS.

Ruffinus (d)Hist. Ecc. 1. 19. Ob hoc apud Medio­lanum Episcoporum concilium convoca­tur; plures decepti: Dionsius verò, Eusebi­us, Paulinus, Rhoda­nius, & Lucifer do­lum in negotio esse proclamantes, asserentes (que) quòd subscriptio in Athanasium, non aliam ob causam, quam destruendae fidei moliretur, in exilium trusi sunt. His etiam Hilarius jungitur, caeteris vel ignorantibus vel non credentibus fraudem. tells us, that the Reason why the Catholicks chose rather to suffer banish­ment than to subscribe to Athanasius's De­privation, was because they believed that through him the Catholick Faith was struck at. 4. That Meletius of Antioch, and P. Felix of Rome, who were put into the places of [Page 24] Eustathius and Liberius, were by some accoun­ted(a)De Meletio S. Ba­silius Ep. 321. Qui quidem reversus re­ferebat nobis quos tecum habait ipse apud Damasum rev. Episcopum sermones & maerore nos affe­cit, cum praedicaret fratres nostros deo charissimos nostros comministros, Mele­tium necnon Euse­bium, inter Arii fur [...] ­rem insanientes recen­sitos. [...]. Epistolam 349. [...]ege. Chron. Paschale: [...], &c. B. Hieron. in Chron. anno 329. Eustathio in Exilium ob fidem truso, us (que) in presentem diem, Arriani Ecclesiam occupaverunt, i. e. Eula [...]ius, Eusebius, Euphronius, Placillus, Stephanus, Leontius, Eudoxius, Meletius, Euzoius, Dorotheus; [...]ursus Meletius. Quorum idcirco tempora non digessi, quod eos hostes potius quam Episcopos Christi judicavi. Idem ad an. 365. Synodus Antio­chiae à Meletio & suis facta, in quâ Homaeousio An [...]maeo (que) rejecto, medium inter haec Homaeousion MACEDONIANUM dogma Vindicaverunt. Hereticks, Dr Hody has already(b)See The Case of Sees Vacant. p. 42, 43, 48. concerning Felix, and p. 191. concerning Meletius. shewn. And this was the Reason why they were by some rejected. The Collector spends two or three pages to prove against the Dr that Liberius being depriv'd did not give up his Right and submit to Felix as Bishop of Rome. Where (for God's sake!) does the Doctor say he did? On the contrary, this makes directly for the Doctor's Cause, that though there was no Cession, yet they that knew Felix to be Orthodox very freely re­cognized him.

But why was Liberius himself, after he had subscribed to Atha­nasius's Condemnation, looked upon by the Catholicks with so ill an eye? Was it not for this, because he had complied with a wrong Succession? So the Collector says. But 'tis full as false as any thing is true. The subscribing to Athanesius's Condemna­tion was look'd upon by many to be a Revolting to the Arian Heresie; and besides, it is certain that the Arians themselves boasted that Liberius had subscribed to their Doctrine. So(c)H [...]st IV. 15. N [...]m cum Eudoxius, & quicum illo opinioni Aetii favebant. Anti­ochiae Hosii Episto­lam accepissent. spar­sis rumoribus divulga­verant Liberium quo (que) Consubstantialis vocabulum condemnasse. [...]. His per Occidentalium legatos confectis, Imp. Romam redeundi potestatem Liberio concessit. S [...]zo [...]en expresly tells us: And St. Ierom (d)Ad an. 350. Quia Liberius taedio victus exilii, & i [...] HAERETICA pravitate subscribens Romam quasi victor intraverat. himself affirms that he actually did so. And this was the Reason why after he was restored and Felix rejected, some [Page 25] would not acknowledge him, but continued to adhere to Felix, whom they knew to be truly Orthodox.

When Hosius of Corduba was pushed on through the violence of the times to Communicate with the Hereticks Valens and Ur­sacius, what was the Reason that he never could be brought to subscribe to Athanasius's Condemnation? Was it not because he accounted even Heresie it self a less fault than to comply with a wrong Succession? No such matter. IfAthanasius says so p. 841. but p. 807. he seems to intimate the contrary. Ho­sius still stood firm in that Point, it was be­cause to subscribe to Athanasius's Condemna­tion, was to own his belief of those Crimes for which he was depos'd, which he could not do, being in his Conscience so extreamly satisfied that he was not guilty. He could not find in his heart to be guilty of so great a Lie, and of so great Injustice to the injur'd Athanasius. And so we are told by Athanasius (a)Epist. ad Solit. p. 841. Quis cum vi­deret Liberium Pon­tificemè Romà in exi­lium ejici, magnum (que) Hosium Episcoporum patrem tot mala pati tot Episcopos ex Hispaniâ & aliis regionibus in exilium deportari, non abunde animadver­terit, omnes criminationes contra Athanasium & reliquos alios falsas esse, &c omnia sycophantiis scatere? at (que) inde est, quod illi omnia pati voluerunt, cum vide­rent eorum in sycophantiis singendis infidias. [...]. himself that the Reason why the Catholick Bishops chose rather to suffer so cruel a Persecution than to set their Hands to his Deprivation, was because they saw plainly that the Crimes with which he was charg'd, were only the Forgeries of his Enemies.

Thus Flavianus and Elias, the Patriarchs of Antioch and Ie­rusalem, though [...] they own'd Timotheus as Patriarch of C P. yet they never could be perswaded to subscribe to the Deprivation of his Predecessor Macedonius, because that would have been to own a belief of the Crimes that were laid to his charge, and of the Iustice of his Enemies Proceedings.

I shall here inform the Collector, that it appears by the Testi­mony of St. Hilary (b)Libro ad Con­stantium: Eusebius Vercellensis Episco­pus post Arelatensem▪ synodum cum Paulinus Episcopus tantis istorum sceleribus contraisset, venire Mediolanum praecipitur, collecta jam illic malignantium synagogâ. —Adest unà cum Romanis clericis, & Lucifero Sardiniae Episcopo. Conventus ut in Athanasium subscriberet, ait de sacerdotali fide priùs opor­tere constare: compertos sibi quosdam ex his qui adessent, haereticâ labe pollutos. Expositam fidem apud Niceam posuit in medio: Spondens omnia se, quae postularent, esse facturum, si pro fidei professione scripsissent, &c. himself, who suf­fered in the Cause of Athanasius, that the Catholick Bishops offered to subscribe to his [Page 26] Deprivation, if his Adversaries would but subscribe to the Doctrine of the Council of Nice. And the same is likewise attested by Sulpitius Severus. (b)Hist. Sac. II. 54. Dionysius, quia non esset assensus, urbe pellitur. — Liberius quo (que) urbis Romae, & Hilarius Pictavorum Episcopus, dantur exilio, &c. — Cum tamen homines parati essent, Athanasium a Communione suspendere, modo ut de fide inter Episcopos quaereretur. If his Adversaries would have done this, the Catholicks would then have been convinced, that the Crimes which they laid to his charge, were not forged against him for the advance of the Arian Heresie, but might possibly be true. This they could not perswade themselves as long as they plainly saw that his Deposers were Enemies to the Orthodox Faith.

The Schism of the Meletians and the Paulinists of Antioch, which the Collector so tediously insists on, that was likewise founded in Heresie, and makes not a whit for their Cause. The Paulinists accounted Meletius and his Successors Arians, or disown'd at least the validity of their Orders. The Meletians on the other side accounted Paulinus a(a)St. Epiphanius Haer. LXXVII. 20. Cum essemus An­tiochiae Vitalis Pau­lino Sabelliani quan­dam dogmatis vocem objiciebat [...], &c. Sabellian: and he was not put upon them by any Sovereign Coercive Power (which the Collector cannot be made to take notice of) but by Lucifer Calaritanus, who had no Authority over them. Dr Hody had asked what Authority he had to Constitute a Bishop of Antioch? The Collector here takes him up, and shews him in a Digression of several Pages (if any thing may be call'd a Digression in that Book) that where Heresie is concern'd a Catholick Bishop has Authority any where. Very pertinently done! As if the Dr could be ignorant of what every Body so well knows. But how could Lucifer's Authority oblige those that accounted Meletius Orthodox, to reject him for another? What power irresistible had he to put a new Bishop upon them? That which chiefly continued that unhappy Division, was the Opi­nion which Lucifer had instill'd into his Party, that the Orders of the other side were null, as being Arian.

[Page 27]To conclude; I have already challenged Mr Dodwel, and the whole Party, (and in this I am only a Second to the Dr) to produce me any ONE single Instance of a Bishop disown'd by the generality of the Catholick Church, for this Reason, because put into the place of another deposed by the Civil Power. The generality is the only thing that can be of any Authority: But I'll now, for a Trial of skill, be so bold, as to give one challenge more. Instead of the generality in the fourth Age, I challenge the Collector (who takes himself to be so much a Master of the Story of that Age) to shew me any one single Person throughout all that Age, that actually stood out on that account. There is not to be found (and I am not afraid to affirm it) so much as one single Person among all the Catholicks of that Age, who actually refused to own any Bishop that was put in by an irresistible Power, but it was for one of these Reasons; either because he accounted him a Here­tick; or because he look'd upon his Orders to be null and invalid as being deriv'd (either immediately or mediately) from one whom he accounted a Heretick; or because the Bishop communicated with Hereticks; or lastly, because he was for some other Crime Excom­municated. The Donatists themselves can afford the Collector no Example: For the Reason why they disown'd the Catholick Bishops, who were back'd by the Imperial Power, was because they ac­counted their Orders and their Baptism invalid, as being deriv'd from such whom they believed to have been Traditors. This Rule being observ'd, you have a full and a clear Answer to all that Long and Verbose Collection. More Labour and more Words to less purpose in my Life I never saw. But it's usual with Men of that size for the cleanlier conveyance of their Tricks and Shuffles, to stare their Readers with Confidence in the Face, and to over­whelm them with a long run of Words.

With this I leave the Matter, the Collector and all together. For the sake of some Reverend and Worthy Persons who are unhap­pily engaged in the present Division, for whom I must avow I have all along had, and shall always have, a very great and distinguishing Respect, I shall here lay down an Example, that relates to our own Country, which to Men of good Tempers may be of good use. When Wlketulus, the worthy Abbot of Croyland, in the time of Will. the Conquerour, was unjustly depriv'd of his Abbey, Ingulphus, the Historian, being nominated to it; without any scruple accepted of it, tho' he own'd his Predecessor to [Page 28] have been wrongfully dispossessed. Wlketulus being a very pious and good Man, and skilful in the Affairs of the Monastery,Note: De Glastoniâ illum ad Burgum transmis­so honorifico equita­tu adduxi & de Burgo ad Croylandiam ac­cersitum omni favore & filiali dilectione dignam videns ejus venerabilem person­am & sanctissimâ religione praecellentem in pristino stallo suo ipsum posu [...] nec ipso superstite, me plenum spontum, sed semper paranymphum vel procuratorem Monasterii reputavi. Hist. p. 79. Ingulphus invites him to come and live with him; placed him always in his own Stall, and honoured him as his Father and Copartner in the Government. Thus the good old Abbot lived lovingly and contentedly with his Successor to his death, and was very useful to the Monastery.

I have only a word or two more to add, and that is to put you in mind, that when-ever you meet with any thing that may be published as an Answer to The Case of Sees Vacant, the Dr desires you would be pleased to Read both together. If you think he is at leisure, or of an inclination, to Answer every little thing (and especially of their Vnderworkmen) that shall be published against him, you will find your self mistaken. The Phaenomena of History (if I may use that word) are so fully comprehended and solv'd in that Treatise, that you will not need or desire any Reply, if you compare and weigh one with the other. As for those, that are of such pliant Understandings, as to fancy that which they read last, to be always the best, or to think that every thing is an Answer, that is so called in the Title page; His Judgment is that they are not worth Instructing, much less gratifying. You ought not to forget what he tells you in his Preface, That he hates everlasting wrangle, and an Adversary that Cavils, and excepts against things not material (or refuses to answer the main points) he shall think de­serves a Reply as little as one that Rails. He often reflects on those Words of that great and good Man, his late Lord, A.B. Tillotson, and desires to regulate his Life and Studies according to them; (it were well if all others would do the same.) A good Man should not be very willing, when his Lord comes, to be found as it were beating his Fellow-servants; and all Controversie, as it is usually managed, is little better. A good Man would be loth to be taken out of the World reeking hot from a sharp Contention with a perverse Adversary, and not a little out of countenance to find himself in this temper, translated into the calm and peaceable Regions of the Blessed, where nothing but perfect Charity and Good will reign for ever.

[Page 29]He is not so ignorant of the nature of Humane Passions, as to hope that his Adversaries can, at this time of day, be convinced by any thing that may be written. For, as the Collector himself owns, Men once dipt in Schism are hardly ever after brought to their former Consistency and Integrity. 'Tis TIME only that can do this. And to that the Dr leaves them.

FINIS

Books Printed for J. Everingham, at the Star in Lud­gate-street.

A New Family-Book: Or, The True Interest of Families. Being Directions to Parents and Children, and to those who are instead of Parents; shewing them their several Duties, and how they may be happy in one another. Together with several Pray­ers for Families and Children, and Graces before and after Me at. To which is annexed, A Discourse about the right Way of Im­proving our Time. By Iames Kirkwood, Rector of Astwick in Bedfordshire. With a Preface by Dr. Horneck. The Second Edition Corrected and much Enlarged.

Eight Sermons Preached on several Occasions. By Nath. Whaley, Rector of Broughton in Northamptonshire.

The Guide of a Christian: Directing him to such Things as are by him to be Believed, Practised, Feared and Hoped for. There are added at the end Prayers to be used upon several Occasions. The second Edition, Corrected.

The Duty of the Clergy and Laity. A Sermon preached in the Parish Church of Grantham, Iuly 12. 1697. At the Primary Vi­sitation of the Right Reverend Father in God, Iames Lord-Bishop of Lincoln. By Ioshua Clark, M.A. Rector of Somerby in Lincoln­shire. Printed at the Request of several Clergymen then present; with his Lordships Approbation.

FINIS.

ERRATA.

PAg. 9. line 8. read the Dr's Book. ib.l. 15, &c. r. Zadock. p. 11. l. 4. r. were continued. ib. l. 16. r. also because. l. 36. r. the ejected. p. 14. l. 26. r. Constans. p. 21. l. 11. r. [...].

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.