Of Christian communion to be kept on in the unity of Christs church and among the professors of truth and holiness : and of the obligations, both of faithful pastors to administer orthodox and holy offices, and of faithful people to communicate in the same : fitted for persecuted or divided or corrupt states of churches when they are either born down by secular persecutions or broken with schisms or defiled with sinful offices and ministrations.

CHAP. VI. Of Ordinations of Anti-Bishops, which, though always Schismatical, are not always Nullities.

WHat I have said in the foregoing Chapter, I think may be suf∣ficient as to the Point of Communion with Anti-Bishops and then Adherents. But I conceive it may not be amiss to add something fur∣ther concerning their Orders; since the validity or invalidity thereof, •••• of greatest Consequence and Importance to the Church at such Times.

One thing, indeed, is said by St. Cyprian, about the Ordaining an opposite or Anti-Bishop against another, in a Church already fill'd, as when Novati••n was set up at Rome against Cornelius, viz. That the Anti-Bishop is no Bishop: whence some conclude, that in reality he has not the Episcopal Powers conferr'd on him. * 1.1 Since after the first, there cannot be a second Bishop, says he, or two Bishops at once in the same Church, whosoever is Ordain'd after one is already in, who ought to preside alone, he is not really a second Bishop, but no Bishop at all.

And if such opposite or Anti-Bishops, receive or retain no Episcopal Powers, 'tis sure they can confer none. And then, they are really nei∣ther Bishops, not Priests, who are Ordained by them. And so, neither good Baptisms, at least according to the Opinion of the Africanes, nor good Sacraments, which are of their administring. As * 1.2 St. Cyprian, and the Africanes, answerable to this nulling of the Ordinations, null also the Baptisms made by Schismaticks. And then, on every Ordination of Anti-Bishops against them, there would be a new and indispensible

Necessity, for all the suffering and oppugned Bishops, to insist upon their own Powers and Claims; lest otherwise the Church should neither have Bishops nor Priests, nor the People any valid Sacraments and Church Administrations.

For the Anti Bishops receiving no Power or Authority for these Ad∣ministrations, from their Ordainers, their Ordination being null, as he says: They can not be impowered, according to the Christian Rules of conferring Powers, without a New Ordination. The conferring of Orders, or of Ministerial Powers, is tyed, by our Lord himself, to a particular way, viz. Imposition of hands, by impowered Persons. In point of Orders, as of Baptism and the Holy Eucharist, the effect is affixed to the Rite of God's Institution. So that such Imposition of Hands, must give them. And if the former Imposition of Hands was null, in these Competitions they can not have these Powers of Orders, but by a New one. The receding of the former Bishop, or his ceasing to make any further Competition, were they already vested with these Po∣wers by their own Ordination, would give the Anti-Bishops scope to exercise the same, and to do it alone, without any Rent or Division. But such Recession, is no Ordination, nor gives them the Episcopal Powers, if they had them not before. Yea, I add, nor would any mere Allowance, or after-Ratification of Synods, confer the same, as I conceive, without such New and Valid Imposition of hands. When Men pretend they have already received these Spiritual Powers, meet Allowance admits of their Pretences. But I see not, how that alone should confer the Powers, if before they wanted them. Nor doth mere saying, I allow thee to be a Bishop or a Priest, without Words not only pre-supposing, but actu∣ally and from that time conferring Authority upon the Persons, seem enough to make them such: Which in my Apprehension, would make little of the Power of Orders; and would be a very lax, and cheap Salvo, to make good the Usurpations, which either now, or at any time here∣tofore, have been made by Sectaries upon the Priests Office. Besides, when they would empower Persons, even Synods themselves, or Bishops met there, can not confer Orders, as I say, more than Sacraments, by what way they please, but are bound up, as I apprehend, to Divine In∣stitutions: and are not left to dispose of Ministerial or Episcopal Po∣wers, by way of Sentence, or of Legislation, but only by Imposition of Episcopal Hands.

But however it might be, in the Opinion of St. Cyprian, and the African Church of that Age; the Africans carrying the effect of Schism farther than others, to the Nulling of their Baptisms and Ordinations: I think this nulling of all Ordinations of Opposite or Anti-Bishops, or mak∣ing them null in themselves, is no Catholick Doctrine, nor did the Church tye it self thereto, or procede thereby in other Ages.

The two most Famous Schisms, headed by opposite or Anti-Bishops in the Primitive Times, and consisting of Men, who retain'd the same Faith with the Catholick Church, were those of the Novatians, and Do∣na••ists. But the Ordinations of Anti-Bishops, were allow'd to make Men Bishops and Priests, in both these Cases.

One, was the Schism of the Novatians; which I think, presents us with the first setting up of Anti-Bishops in the Christian Church, against other Bishops keeping to the same Faith that was profess'd by themselves, and which is of the more Account in this Case, because of this St. ••y∣prian himself speaks, saying on Account of No∣vatian, when * 1.3 he set up as an Anti-Bishop a∣gainst Cornelius, that the second Bishop is not re∣ally secundus, but nullus; not a second, but none at all. This Ordination of Novatian against Cornelius, intail'd a great Division and † 1.4 Competi∣tion of opposite Heads, upon the Church. And the Novatians, as may be seen in Sozomen, could produce a Succession of Bishops, set up to head their Party against the Catholick Bishops, in the great Churches. But yet, excepting St. Cyprian and the Africanes, whom ‖ 1.5 St. Basil Notes to have strained the Effects of Schism too far, and to have out-shot the Mark in these Points; though these were Anti-Bishops, the Catholick Church did not look upon them, and the Priests Ordain'd by them, as meer Lay-men, or null their Ordinations, Bap∣tisms, or other Church-ministrations. For, on their Return to the Ca∣tholick Church, the great Council of Nice De∣crees, That * 1.6 such of them as should be found in the Clergy, should be in the same Order and De∣gree, as they had been Ordained to in their own Party. And, that * having received impo∣sition * 1.7 of Hands, or being Ordained before: So, according to their Degree, they should remain in the Rank of the Clergy. So that ‖ 1.8 in any City, or Town, if there were none else in Orders, they still should be the Bishops and Priests thereof. But if at the Time of their Reconciliation, there should be a Catholick Bishop, or Priest, living there, that then the Catholick should have Preference, and the Novatian should be content with the Title of a Bishop, (without the Administration); or with a Presbyter, or Chorepiscopus's Place, that there may not be two Bishops in a City at once. Yea, and before such Return or Reconciliation to the Church, in great straitness or want of oppor∣tunities for Worship otherwise, the Catholicks resorted to their Churches,

to partake of Ministerial Offices from them, as * 1.9 Sozomen reports they did in the Arian Persecution under Constantius.

The Other, was the Schism of the Donatists, † 1.10 begun by Men pro∣fessing the same Faith, by the setting up of Majorinus as and opposite or Anti-Bishop against Caecilian, the true and Canonical Bishop of Car∣thage. This Schism set Africk in a Flame, and quickly multiplyed in∣to a Number of Anti-Bishops and their Abettors, to confront the re∣gular. Bishops of the African Churches. The Case of these Anti Bi∣shops, came about the Year of Christ 314, to be determined by the Synod under Melchiades at Rome. And there, to heal the Division, Melchiades and the Synod, as St. Austin * 1.11 relates, declared their readiness to send Communicatory Letters to them; even to those, that appeared to be of Majorinus's Ordination. And decreed, that wherescever, by reason of the Breach, there were two Bishops, he should be con∣firmed, who was first Ordained; and that for the other, another Church or Bishoprick should be pro∣vided. Which St. Austin applauds, as an inno∣cent, and perfect, a provident, and pacifick Judg∣ment. And afterwards, in the Council of Car∣thage under Aurelius, about the Year of Christ, 419. whereas St. Austin himself was present, concerning the Reception of the Donatists into the * 1.12 Church, 'tis decreed, That the Donatist Clergy, on their return to the Church, shall be received in their proper Honours, or Degrees of Orders; like as 'tis manifest, they have been received in A∣frick, in Times foregoing. And when any Peo∣ple, or Diocess, are converted from Donatism, if, at the time of their Con∣version, they have Donatist Bishops, who come over with them, * 1.13 with∣out Controversie, say they in another Canon, they may have them still.

Besides these famous Instances of opposite or Anti-Bishops, the same may likewise appear of others.

Flavianus, from a Presbyter of that Church, was set up as an Anti-Bishop, and Ordained at Antioch against Paulinus, who had for a good while lived a Bishop of the Orthodox in that Church, and by * 1.14 Agreement with his Competitor Meletius, sworn to by Flavianus himself, was to hold it alone without any New Opposition, after Meletius's Death. This Paulinus moreover, after the setting up of Flavianus against him, was owned for the Bishop of Antioch, not only by the Bishops of Egypt, of Arabia, and Cyprus; but also by the Bishop of Rome and the Occi∣dentals, who directed their Synodical Epistles to him, and none to Flavianus,

as is related by * 1.15 Socrates, and † 1.16 Sozomen. But yet, Flavianus's Ordination was not judged null, the great Chrysostom himself having his Priests Orders from him, as may be learn'd from ‖ 1.17 Pal∣lqdius; and, whilst he was one of his Presby∣ters, preaching such excellent Homilies, as we have of his to the People of Antioch. And without any pretence of Nullity in his Ordination, on account the Church was fill'd by Paulirus at the time thereof; after the death of * 1.18 Paulinus, and of his Successor Euagrius, without any New Ordination, he was admitted to Communion, both by the Bishops of Alexandria and Rome, who had rejected him as a Schismatical Bishop, whilst Paulisus and Euagrius were alive.

In the Succession of Bishops in the Church of Rome, there have been numerous Ordinations of opposite or Anti-bishops, which have made no fewer, than 27 Schisms. And some of them, of long continuance, that, by the Ordination of Clemens 7th. as an Anti-bishop against Ur∣ban 6th. being reckoned to have lasted Fifty Years. But neither * 1.19 these Anti-bishops, nor those Ordained by them, have been thought to want the Powers of Orders, nor to make any breach of the continued Series and Succession, of Apostolical Ordination, in that Church, Nor is it judged to do so, by our selves; we concluding our own to be a right and uninterrupted Succession of Orders, and not difowing it, in good part at least, to be derived from them.

In the Arian Persecution, of Athanasius and the Orthodox Faith, nu∣merous were the unjust Deprivations of Orthodox Bishops; as of Atha∣nasius at Alexandria, Paulus at Constantinople, Liberius at Rome, Asclepas at Gaza, Lucius at Adrianople, &c. These Bishops, being deposed for their adherence to the Truth, there was a Nullity in their depriva∣tions, as I shewed ‖ 1.20 before; and notwithstanding those deprivations, they still fill'd those Churches, and were the true Bishops thereof; and ac∣cordingly * 1.21 were communicated with and received as such, by the Western Synods. And that, because the depositions were not really for other Faults, which were falsly fixed upon their Persons; but for their hold∣ing the Nicene Faith, as the * 1.22 Sufferers pleaded, and upon Examina∣tion, the † 1.23 Synods, and the Emperour ‖ 1.24 Constans, found. But on their depositions, Anti-bishops were set up against them, and obtruded on their

seeral Churches, * as Gregory, and afterwards George were, against Athanasius at Alexandria; and Eusebins of Niconiedia, and after him Ma∣cedonius, were against Paulus at Constantinople; and Felix, against Libe∣rius at Rome; and Quintianus, against Asclepas at Gaza; not to men∣tion others, in other places. And yet these Anti-bishops, being for the most part Hen ••••ul, as well as Schismatical Bishops, were not held to want the Powers of others, nor, if any of them left their Heresies, and returned to the Faith of the Church, was there any new Ordina∣tion required of them, or of those who had been Ordained by them!

Besides all this, instead of Anti-bishops being absolutely null, and in reality no Bishops; to heal, and compose the differences, of a misera∣bly harassed and divided Church, on such Competitions it has been some∣times agreed, that, whichsoever of them were the Right, on the death of either, the Survivor should be owned, and the Church should have no other Bishop; and so all the Ordinations, and Episcopal Acts there∣in, should pass through his hands, and stand on his Authority, whilst he lived. Thus it was at Antioch, where the Church was divided into Two Parts, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 for the cause of the Faith, which was common to them both; but of the Bishops, as Socrates * 1.25 says, some owning and adhering to Mele••ius, and others to Paulinus. For, to heal and close this la∣mentable Schism, it was agreed, which † 1.26 Sozomen calls an admirable Counsel, and expedient, that, on the death of either, the survivor should hold the See alone for his Life, without being confronted and opposed, by the Ordination of any other Person. To prevent which, an Oath was exacted, of all in that Church, who seemed to stand fairest for the Episcopate, and of Flavianus among the rest, that on the death of either of the Bi∣shops, they would not be Ordain'd Bishop of Antioch, whilst the other sur∣vived. Which Agreement and Oath, being afterwards * 1.27 broke by Flavianus, when, on the death of Meletius, he was Ordained Bishop against Paulinus, cost him so much trouble and difficulty, as he found to get himself received for the Bishop thereof, both in Egypt, Arabia, and Cyprus; and at Rome, and among the Western Bishops, afterwards.

Thus, though Men in a Schism, did ill in Ordaining others: yet were not those Ordinations null in themselves; but really conferred the powers of Orders, which the Persons might exercise if the Church pleased. And when once the Persons were reconciled, and had satisfied the Church for their Schism, they have often been allow'd to officiate in Virtue of that Ordination, without being Ordained over again, by the greatest Councils, and through the early and later Ages of the Church.

And this shews, that their Ordinations were not null in themselves. For if such Persons, had never received any Spiritual powers in their Ordinations, they had none to exercise. And had the Church been of this perswasion, it would never have admitted them to exercise those

POWERS, which it believed were never Conferred on them.

But, though these Men, even after they had faln into a Schism, or others who were Ordained therein, had Orders: yet was it in the po∣wer of the Church, to deny them the Ministerial Exercise of their Or∣ders. Men must have the Communion of the Church as well as Orders, before they can exercise their Orders, and minister to the Faithful in any Religious Assemblies. And though their Schism, doth not utterly devest, or exclude them from the Powers of Orders: yet it doth from the Communion of the Church, without which the Faithful, (who are not to seek, but to shun the Ministrations of Schismaticks, and Excom∣municate persons) must not partake with them in any Exercise of Or∣ders. And to this Communion, after once they have justly lost, and faln from it, they are to be restored again in Degree more or less, and to be received to the Communion, either only of Lay-members, or else of Clergy, and to officiate according to their former Honors, as the Church pleaseth.

And as to this Admission and Allowance, to exercise their Orders in its Communion, the Church has acted variously, according as it saw cause. When Ordinations have been made against the Rules of Unity, though the Offenders thereby received Orders; yet, in care of these Rules, and to assert and keep up Discipline, it has at some times denyed, as well as at other times granted its Communion to them, for their Exer∣cise of the same, Where it judged that Rigor expedient, on their sub∣mission, it, would receive them, to communicate as Lay-men. But, they should not be allow'd the Priviledges, nor permitted to act and offi∣ciate, as Bishops and Priests, in her Communion; nor should other Churches receive them, and joyn with them as such, till moreover sa∣tisfaction had been first given to those Rules of Unity in Ordinations, which had been broken in theirs.

And this it has done, not only in case of this great Rule, of not Ordaining a Bishop into a full Church: but, also in case of other Rules, which are of less Account, than it is. Thus, of Ordination into a Church already vacant, if it is made without the Metropolitanes consent, the Coun∣cil of Nice, and afterwards the Council of Antioch, * 1.28 De••rce, That the Church shall not receive such an one for a Bishop. And of Ordinations at large, without declaring the appropriate Church or Place, wherein the Person Ordained is to officiate; the Council of Chalcedon decrees, † 1.29 that they shall be invalid. Not to mention or insist also, on the Council of Nice's, rejecting of the ‖ 1.30 Anti-bishops Ordained by the Schismatick Meletius, * 1.31 till they were confirmed by a more holy imposition of hands, as their Sy∣nodical

Epistle says; because there was an incapacity more than ordi∣nary for giving Orders, not only to Anti-bishops, but to any others, in his Case; which, because it may be of use in this Argument, I shall give an Account of.

Meletius, was Bishop of Lycus in Egypt, under the See of Alexan∣dria; and, as Epiphanius * 1.32 relates, was next in dignity and power to Peter the Bishop of Alexandria himself, And he, with his Adherents, broke off from the Unity of the Church, and set up a Schism, separating from Peter the Bishop of Alex∣andria, and * 1.33 assembling for Prayers, and other Divine Offices by themselves; and † 1.34 Ordaining op∣posite Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, for the erection of opposite Churches, in several places, as Eleuthe∣ropolis, Gaza, and Aelia, as Epiphanius says. And these separate erections of Churches, and op∣posite Ordinations, he made, after he had been justly deposed by Peter in a Synod, (as we are assured by Athanasius, who had the best Opportu∣nities to understand the Truth of these Matters, and the most cause to inquire into them, and also by Socrates after∣wards.) And that too, * 1.35 among other Crimes, for his having faln in the Persecution, to deny the Faith, and to sacrifice to Idols. Which Crimes, when any Bishop or Clergy, were once convi∣cted of, by the great Rule of Church-Disci∣pline, they were never afterwards to exercise any Clerical Powers, or to officiate as Bishops and Clergy; but, upon their Reconciliation, were to be received only to Lay-Communion.

After such Falls, says St. Cyprian, 'tis in vain for any to seek to usurp the Episcopacy; since 'tis manifest such Men can neither preside in the Church of Christ, nor ought to offer Sacrifice to God. Chiefly, since it has been De∣creed by Cornelius, and by Us, and by all the Bishops of the whole World, concerning them, that after such Offence, they may be * 1.36 admitted to Penance, and the Peace of the Church, but must stand removed from the Honour of the Priesthood and Clerical Orders. According∣ly, Basilides the Bishop, after he had denyed and cursed Christ, was very thankful, as † 1.37 he says, and looked upon it as a great Favour to him, that he could be received to communicate as a Lay-man. And likewise Trophimus the Bishop, when he had sacrificed to Idols, was ‖ 1.38 admitted, as he tells An∣totianus,

only to communicate as a Lay-man, not to usurp the Priests Office any more, as some malicious persons had inform'd him, which made Anto∣nianus complain of the same to Cyprian, as a Violation of this known Rule of Discipline. And in Vertue of this, being the known and re∣ceived Rule of the Church, the Donatists sought to invalidate and over∣throw the Ordination of Caecilian, against whom they had set up their Anti-bishop Majorinus at Carthage: * 1.39 pretending, that Caecilians Or∣dainers, particularly Faelix of Aptisng, had been Traditors in the precede∣ing Persecution, or had faln from Christ, and deliver'd up their Bibles to be burnt by their persecutors. Which Charge, had it been true, as it was false; would have been received and owned for a just Excep∣tion, on both sides. And the Catholicks would have rejected Caecilian, till he could make out some better Ordination; as well as the Council of Nice did these Egyptian Anti-bishops, that had no better Ordainer than Meletius, who stood guilty of the like Offence. But it was re∣jected in Caecilians Case, as being a malicious Forgery, the Donatists thereby impudently laying their own Crimes on others, hoping that would hinder men from inquiring after the same in themselves.

Indeed, as Epiphanius * 1.40 relates this Matter, Meletius made this Schism, and Ordained these Anti-bishops, not after he had sacrificed to Idols, and had been Synodically condemned by Peter for the same; but whilst he, as well as Peter, was a stout Confessor for the Faith against Idols, and in his Zeal for the Discipline of the Church, against Peters easiness in ad∣mitting the Lapsers, who sought to them, whilst they were together in Prison, for the peace of the Church. But Athanasius, who was nearer to this Transaction, and who, after some others, was chosen to su••∣ceed Peter in the same Church, is more like to understand the Truth of this Affair, than Epiphanius was. Whom * 1.41 Baronius, and † 1.42 Petavius look upon as mis∣lead into this account, by some false Acts or Histories of the Meletians, who dealt injuri∣ously with Peter and the Catholicks in Egypt, like as the Donatists did with Caecilian and those Catholicks in Africk; on whom they labour'd to fix the Crime of being Traditors, whereof the Catholicks were free, but they themselves were notoriously guilty.

Thus, though their Orders were valid in themselves, without which they could have been received at no time; yet have they not always availed to Claim and obtain the Churches Communion, without which the persons could not be received by the Faithful to exercise the same. And this has been, when the Church saw fit and expedient, to insist upon the Rules of Unity in Ordinations, and more vigorously to assert Ecclesiastical Law and Discipline.

And this, it might assert, or relax, as it saw Cause. Ecclesiastical

Law and Discipline, is not a Rule of indispensible Obligation to the Church; but such as it may, and oft-times has receded from, on great reason and necessity. What Rules the Church makes, the Church may alter and go off from in particular Cases, as need shall require, and as may best serve those ends for which it made them.

Accordingly, Rules of Discipline, have not been one and the same in all Ages. For, to omit others, the ancient Councils asserted the * 1.43 free Election of Bishops, (nominated here by the Prince,) to the Bishops of the Province: And for bid the † 1.44 Translation of Bishops, from poorer to richer Sees: And the Attendance of Bishops, about Courts of Princes, the Council of ‖ 1.45 Antioch, confirmed afterwards at * 1.46 Chalcedon, and in † 1.47 Trullo, forbidding them to go to the Emperor, without the approbation and Letters of the Metropolitane. And ‖ 1.48 excluded both Bishops and Clergy, from intermealing, and incumbring themselves, with Secular Trusts and Administrations. All which are otherwise in these latter Ages.

And such Rules of Discipline, as have been observed more strictly, have not had one equal and uniform Tenor of Observation; but have been sometimes remitted, and sometimes exacted and stood upon, as the Church was driven thereto by prudential Reason. Thus it has been with the Canons or Rules of Discipline, about Ordinations. Which, as the Church has sometimes insisted on, as I noted, to vacate the Or∣dinations, which any Bishops made against them; I mean, to deny the Persons its Communion, without which, whatever powers of Orders they had received, they could not be received in any Assemblies of the Faithful, to exercise the same: So were they at other times relaxed and over-ruled by the necessities of the Church, and the Persons, on their reconciliation, admitted to officiate in vertue of such Orders, as I think may abundantly appear by the fore-cited instances. And this very Reason is given for it, by the African Fathers in the Synod of Car∣thage, when they admit of the Ordinations of the Donatists, which the Transmarine or Italian Synod had rejected: telling Pope Anastasius, that this Reception of them to the same Orders, was for the * 1.49 great necessity of Africk,—for a † better provision for Catholick Unity, and for ‖ 1.50 the be∣nefit and peace of the Church.

These instances and proofs, I think may be sufficient to shew, that Anti-bishops, and others of their Ordination, have Orders; though, being in a Schism, the Faithful ought not to joyn with them in their

use thereof. Their Schism, makes them Sinners in receiving, and in using their Orders, and shuts out others from communicating therewith. But it doth not utterly destroy, and null their Orders; nor must it be said, I conceive, that by such sinful Ordination they receive nothing or, that whatever they had formerly received, they lose by falling in∣to Schism, so as that thenceforward they have no Orders, nor are Bishops or Priests at all.

The Donatists indeed, as St. Austin reports, asserted this, and taught, that * 1.51 by breaking off from the Church, though men did not lose the Bap∣tism which they had received before, yet they lost their Orders, or the Au∣thority and Power of Baptizing. And on pretence thereof, they re-bap∣tized those, who, since the Breach, had been baptized by any of the Catholick Clergy,

As to which, he owns, that whilst they continue in their Schism, they sin in exercising their Orders. * 1.52 They do not do right, saith he, in giving Baptism to others, whilst they themselves are broken off from the Church.— † 1.53 And it is to their own destruction, so long as they have not the Charity of Union.— ‖ 1.54 The having Baptism themselves, and confering it on others, are both pernicious, whilst they continue out of the Bond of Peace.

But, though they ought not to use these powers, till they have a∣mended their Schism: yet, as he says, they have them if they will use them, and the Acts of Orders are not Nul∣lities, which are done by them. * 1.55 There is no Question now to be made, saith he, and it has been a thing discussed, considered, and established through the whole World, that they, who are bro∣ken off from the Unity of the Church, do for all that retain, both their Baptism, and their Orders or Power of Baptizing. † 1.56 —When correcting the Error of their Schism, they are received to the Unity and Peace of the Church; if it seem need∣ful, or expedient to have them bear their former Offices, their Prelates are not to be Ordain'd again, but as their former Baptism, so their former Or∣dination

remains intire in them, For their Fault lay in their Schism, which is corrected by their being settled anem in the peace of U••ity: not in the holy institutions, either of Bapism or Orders, which wheresoever they are really, are of validity, * 1.57—Yea, and when on such reception to the Com∣munion of the Church, it seems expedient not to admit them, to the administration of their former Orders; yet even there, adds he, is not the po∣wer of Orders withdrawn from them, but remains still lodged in them. Which also may appear from hence, because, on their Reconciliation, they are not made to stand among the Penitents, as other Offenders among the people are, and there to receive penance, and absolution, by imposition of hands: Which is omitted towards them, not because it would be an injury to their persons, (Schism being as Criminal, if not more Criminal in them, than it is in others;) but be∣cause it would be an injury to their Orders, which Orders therefore must be still inherent in them at that time to give them that Exemption: For no * 1.58 person in Holy Orders, as Bishops, Priests and Deacons, was lyable, or ever made to do penance, by the ancient Rules and Discipline of the Church.

And before them, * 1.59 St. Cyprian and the Afri∣canes of his Age, together with Firmilian of Cae∣sarea in Cappadocea, carryed the effect of Schism so far, as quite to set asi e all Ministerial Acts of Schismaticks. And on that Account, they equally null'd, both their * 1.60 Ordinations, and their Baptisms. The powers of Baptizing, and Ordaining, and of doing other Ministerial Acts, are powers of the Holy Ghost. And by Schism, in their Account, the † 1.61 Schismaticks fell from the Grace of the Holy Ghost; and, having lost it themselves, were no longer empowered to confer it on others, either in Baptism, or Ordination, being thence forward, as to these powers, as meer, Lay-men, as St. Basil recites their Opinion.

But this, St. Basil thinks was a straining things too far; and others of Asia, as he * 1.62 says, were altogether of another Opinion: So, in his Canonical Epistle, which was received into the Code of the Universal

Church by the * 1.63 sixth Council in Trullo, he admits those Ministerial Acts and Baptisms, when done by Bishops, or by others of their Ordination, in a Schism.

Yea, and even Cyprian and those Africanes, who were for nulling these Acts and Baptisms of Scismaticks, seem to have been for this only in regard to their own Communion, or by denying Communion to them in their own Churches, in way of asserting Discipline and Canons; but not to have thought them naturally, and essentially null in themselves. And this, I think, is plain from hence. Because, though, in care to keep up Discipline, they null'd these Acts as to their own Communion, in the case of any of their own Members: Yet they declare, that if any other Churches admit them, they will not break Communion with them, on account thereof. * 1.64 We judge none, nor will exclude any from our Communion, who shall be of another Opinion, says St. Cyprian at the Head of the Council of Car∣thage, when they made this Determination. And again, in another Council, when they writ to Stephen of Rome to concur with them, in re∣jecting, * 1.65 not only the Baptism, but the Ordina∣tion of Men in Heresie or Schism, and in receiv∣ing them, when they returned to the Church, only to Lay-communion: They declare, that ‖ 1.66 if any of their Brethren, who have imbihed another Opi∣nion, are still for sticking to their former Senti∣ments, they are not forcing any, nor for breaking Communion with those, who are for preserving that Bond of Concord and Peace, which ought to be up∣held in the College of Bishops. So that if any Persons of such Baptism, or Ordination, came to them with Communicatory Letters from any other Bishops; they would admit them to all Acts, whether of Lay, or Clerical Communion, in Car∣thage and Africk, which they had been admitted to at home, the denyal whereof, as I shewed * 1.67 before, had been to break Communion with other Churches, which they disclaim. And if they would admit them to com∣municate thus with them in their Churches, they could not think, ei∣ther their Baptisms or Ordinations, null in themselves. For the Com∣munion professed in the Creed, is a Communion of Saints, or Christians, who are listed or made Christians, by Baptism; and Clergy-men, by Or∣dinaetion: and there is no admission of Un-baptized Persons, to those Acts which are proper to the Faithful; or of Un-ordained Persons, to those Priviledges and Functions which are peculiar to the Clergy, in the Church 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Christ.

But against all this it may be Objected, that there it to be but one Bishop at once in a Church, as * 1.68 St. Cyprian alledges, and as the great Coun∣cil of Nice afterwards * 1.69 provides: and that the Bishop in the Church, is the Principle of Unity. And that the admission of the Ordination of Anti-bishops, will be against the Nature of the Spiritual Monarchy, the Nature of Monarchy not admitting of two at once. And, as the Throne can hold but one, so the Electors, where the Monarchy goes by Election, can chuse but one: who being once chosen, they can elect no more, nor can confer the same powers on any other, till the Throne becomes vacant again.

But as to the Bishops being the principle of Unity, that respects the Peo∣ples Duty, of holding Communion with him; his being the Principle of Unity to the Church, binding the Church to depend on him, and incorporate under him, and to communicate with him. And as to this, the Members, who are already subject to a rightful Bishop, are not to admit of a second Bishop. That is, if such an one is set up, they are not to unite themselves to him, and turn over to his Communion, as I think may sufficiently appear, from what I have * 1.70 above discoursed on that Point; but are to stand off from him, as from one that makes a Schism. And thus every Church as a Spiritual Monarchy, is not to be possessed by two at once, since all must adhere to one: And though the second, who is set up in opposition, be a Bishop, yet he is not their Bishop, nor may any of them break off from their rightful Head, to joyn in his Communion.

But though the Anti-bishop in any Church, can not oblige or hold all the Members thereof to himself, as the principle of Unity; yet may he have all, that is of the essence of Episcopacy. For, to be an Head of Union in the Church, is not of the essence of a Bishop. It may be separate from the Episcopal powers; as it is, in all Bishops falling into Heresie, or Schism. For they are no longer Heads of Union, since none are * 1.71 bound to follow them, but all are to break Commu∣nion with them. But yet they are Bishops still, and do not thereby fall from the powers of Ordination, nor, on their Re-union to the Church, need to be Ordained again.

'Tis true, one main use of Episcopacy, is to be a means of Unity. But yet, it is not so for this use, as to be nnll, or cease, when it misses, or fails thereof. Even as Baptism, or the Eucharist, are for Unity: * 1.72 We being all baptized into one Body; and being † 1.73 one Body, as partaking all of one Bread, as the Apostle says. But yet, they do not always cease, or fail of their effects, when administred in breach thereof: and Baptism, as was held by the ancient Church, and as we all hold now, is still valid, though performed by Schismaticks.

When they miss of this, they have other uses. As the Sacraments, be∣sides keeping Unity among the Members, enter and ratifie the Covenant of Grace. And Episcopacy, besides the use, of keeping the Church one and unbroken is for administration of the Word, of Prayers, and Sacraments, and for Ordaining others to do the same. And though all these ought to be exercised in the Unity of the Church, and 'tis a great Sin when 'tis otherwise: yet such sinful Exercises, are no Nul∣lities, as if the Persons had no powers, or as if the Administrations had no effect at all.

In the State Monarchy, I grant, that the Regal Powers, and this use of their being a principle of State-Unity, are more closely and con∣stantly connected. And that, as he, who has the Regal Powers, is the principle of State-Union: so he, who is no such principle, and to whom the People are not bound to unite, has truly no Regal Au∣thority or Powers. And in Elective Kingdoms, if, whilst the Throne is full, the Electors, (whose power of choosing is only in Vacancies,) pretend to choose another; they really confer no Regal power, nor make a King; but an Usurper. This is, because secular powers, are more limited to Territories and Precincts; and because no King, can be a King at large, but must only be a King, of such or such a Place, or Countries.

But in the Spiritual Monarchy 'tis otherwise. For the Collation, and Reception of the Episcopal Powers, is not with precise Limitation to such a particular place or Diocess; but indefinite, or with respect to the Church at large. Or expressed, as it is in our Form of Ordination, by receiving of the Holy Ghost for the Office of a Bishop, for the Church of God. Which makes any person, not a meer Local, but a Catholick Bishop; or one vested with Episcopal powers, and under no want of inherent Authority to exercise Episcopal Acts, (if, as a Conscientious Lover of Unity, he be not otherwise restrained by Rules of maintain∣ing Unity and Order,) in any part of the World. The first Bishops, being chosen from among the first Converts, were first vested with powers; and then, by gathering more Profelites, were to get Subjects, and inlarge Territories, being Ordain'd Bishops of those, * 1.74 who should af∣terwards believe, as St. Clement says. And the Holy Apostles, who stood vested with all the Episcopal powers, were not tyed to any place; but, by Christs Commission, were left equally, and indefinitely, to the whole Church. And till the great Council of Chalcedon, which was held about the Year of Christ 451. were the Periodeutai or Circuitors; so called, as ‖ 1.75 Zonoras observes, because they were to go about hither and thither, to keep the Faithful in their Duty, not having any fixt Place or Chair of their own. At the Synod of Laodicea, about the Year of Christ

36••. 'tis * 1.76 left to these Periodeutas, to supply the want of Fixt Bishops, in those places and Countries, that were not thought considerable enough to have a Bishop fixed among them. And afterwards, at the time of the Council of Chalcedon, mention is again made of them. As of one ‖ 1.77 Ba∣lentius, whom, being a scandalous Liver, Iba•• is accused in the Council, to have Ordained Presbyter and Periodeutes. And of one † 1.78 Alexander, who, in the same Council, is styled the most Reverend Presbyter, and Periodeutes.

This great Council of Chalcedon, indeed, * 1.79 forbids any Presbyter, or Dea∣con, to be Ordain'd absolutely, or at large, i. e. without having, and de∣claring the appropriate place, or seat, wherein he is to officiate; and † 1.80 va∣cates the Ordinations, which shall be made otherwise. And the same has been done since by the Canons of other Councils, ‖ 1.81 forbidding any to be Ordain'd sine Titulo, without a Title, to some certain Place, or Benefice.

But these Local Limitations, or Appropriations of place in giving Orders, come not in, for the necessity and essence of Ordination. And therefore some are excepted therein, and allowed still to be Ordain'd without them; whose Ordinations are notwithstanding as valid, as theirs who are Ordain'd with them. Thus, Fellows, and Chaplains of Colle∣ges; and Masters of Arts, who have been able to live five years of themselves in the Universities, &c. are excepted by our * 1.82 own Canon: and ‖ 1.83 they, who have Patrimony, and Provision of Maintenance of their own other ways, are excepted by the Ca∣non of the Council of Lateran. And if such Li∣mitation of place, were of the essence of Or∣dination; they could be but once placed, as they are once Ordain'd, and not remove from place to place without a new Ordination. But they were brought in, for a prudent provision, to keep the Clergy from being burthensome; or to prevent more entring into Orders, than are requisite for the Churches Needs, or can live upon its main∣tenance, as appears by the Canons themselves.

Moreover, Bishops, when for this purpose, and for maintenance of Unity and Order, they are tyed up to places in their Administrations;

besides the local relation, of Bishops of such a place, who are to have a more special regard for their own proper Division: they stand also, as I have * 1.84 already shewed, under another relation, of Cathalik Bishops, or of Bishops of the Church at large, who, as there is need of it, and as occasion is offered, are to have a general in∣spection and regard too for all the rest. * 1.85 The collection of all Churches, as St. Cyprian says, is but one Episcopate; and those many People, who are fed, and inspected by so many Pastors, make all but one Flock. Whereof particular Dividends are so intrusted to every single Bishop, as to make them stand obliged and accountable, not only for their own rata pars, that is their proper share or division; but, as Partners in a Bond, each of them pro solide, i. e. for the whole sum.

These local Limitations, and Appropriations of Precincts, to have every Bishop the Bishop of some place, and to have but one Bishop at a time in a City or Place, are great and necessary Rules, 'tis true, of Order and Unity. And all the Pastoral Powers, are most highly served by having them to direct their Exercise; and would be mightily disturbed, and hindred of their end, by the want thereof: So that they are con∣scientiously, and carefully to be observed, and maintain'd in the Church.

But their Necessity, is for Order and Unity, not for the Being of E∣piscopacy. And when there are two Bishops, heading seperate Churches at once in a place; that duplicity, must only prove one to be a Schif∣matick; but doth not prove him, as I think may sufficiently appear from what has been here discoursed, to be no Bishop. Nay, while this separation of Churches could be without the Guilt of Schism, as it was in the first standing off of the Jews from the Gentile Converts, and as the blessed Apostles themselves allow'd it should be for a time, till the Jews could be brought to see the Lawfulness of communicating with Gen∣tiles, which was contrary to all their former received Opinions: I say, whilst such separation was to be tolerated without imputation of Schism, to suit the necessity of the Church during their prejudices, 'tis very likely there were two Bishops set up in the same place by the Holy Apostles themselves. Thus, in the City of Rome, 'tis probable, that at first there were at once two Churches, one of Jews, and the other of Gentiles, gather'd there by the two Great Apostles, St. Peter and St. Paul. Epiphanius says of both these Apostles, that at Rome, they were * 1.86 both the first Apostles, and the first Bishops. And sets down the Bishops in the first Succession of that Church, double. Of the Roman Bishops, this, † 1.87 says he, is the succession, Peter and Paul, Linus and Cletus,

* 1.88 Clemens, Euirdstus, Alexander, Xystus, and so on. And this is thought to be the best Re∣conciliation of those various accounts, of the first Successors to the Holy Apostles, in that Church. And the like may reasonably be thought of other Churches, where Jews and Gentiles liv∣ed intermixed; Epiphanius noting it as a thing extraordinary and un∣usual in the Church of Alexandria, (which was a place much inhabited and resorted to by the † 1.89 Jews, and where the * 1.90 first Church was planted by St. Mark, who was made Bishop thereof by St. Peter the Apo∣stle of the Jews,) ‖ 1.91 that it had never at any time had two Bishops in the same City at once, like other Cities. So that, what the having of two Bishops in the same City at once, strikes at, is the Duty of Church-Uni∣ty. But where it could be tolerated without imputation of Schism, and was not destructive of the required Unity, (as it was not in those first beginnings of the Church, when God was pleased for a time to tolerate the former separation between Jews and Gentiles, till the Jews had out-grown their Prejudices against communion with Gentiles,) it was not destructive of, or inconsistent with the Being of Episcopacy.

Thus, is not the opposite or Anti-bishops Ordination, but only his Communion excluded, by having but one Bishop in a Church at a time, and by the rightful Bishops being the Principle of Church-Union. Because another is their rightful Bishop, he can not be the Bishop of that place or Diocess, since they can not have two Bishops at once. And because that other is their principle of Union, they are not to communicate with him, as I have shewn at large in the preceding Chapters. But though he is not their Bishop, nor is to have the communion of the Faithful by reason of his Schism; yet he may be a Bishop, and have the powers of Orders, by imposition of Episcopal Hands in his own Ordination. So that among such Anti-bishops and their adherents, we are to lament the loss of Unity and Church communion: but not of all Orders and Baptisms, as if, by such Schism, they were rendered utterly uncapable, either to baptize or ordain, and so were like to have neither Priest∣hood nor Christianity left among them.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Et cum post pri∣mum, se∣cundu•• esse non poff••••, •••• quisquis post unum, qui solus esse debeat, sactus est; non jam secundus ille, sed nullus est, Cyp. Ep. 55. p. 104. Ed. Ox.
• * 1.2

  Vid. Cyp. Ep. ad Mag∣num. Ep. 66. & ad Jubaia∣num Epist. 73. & Concil. Carthag. de Bapt. Haeret. sub Cyp. ap. Cyp. pag. 229. & Epist. 75. pag. 221. Ed. Ox.
• * 1.3

  Vid. Cyp. Ep. 44. p. 85, 86. & Ep. 55. p. 103, 104. Ed. Ox.
• † 1.4

  Cum per omnes Provincias, & per Urbes singulas, ordinati sunt E∣piscopi, in aetate antiqui, in fide in∣tegri, in pressura probati, in perse∣cutione proscripti, ille [Novatianus] super eos creare alios Pseudo-Episco∣pos ausus est, Cyp. Ep. 55. p. 112. Ed. Ox.
• ‖ 1.5

  Canon Ep. ad Amphiloch. Can. 1.
• * 1.6

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.7

  † 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• ‖ 1.8

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Conc. Nic. prim. Can. 8.
• * 1.9

  Hist. Ecc l. 4. c. 20. & Soc. l. 2. c. 38.
• † 1.10

  Optat. Milev. l. 1. p. 40, 41, 42, &c. Ed. Par. Albasp.
• * 1.11

  Beati Melchiadis ultima prolata est sententia—paratus Communica∣torias Literas mittere, etiam iis, quos a Majorino ordinatos esse constaret: ita ut quibuscunque locis duo essent Episcopi, quos dissensio geminasset, eum confirmari vellet, qui suisset or∣dinatus prior, alteri autem eorum, plebs alia regenda provideretur. O Virum Optimum! O Filium Chri∣stianae Pacis, & Patrem Christianae Plebis!—Quam innocens, quam in∣tegra, quam provida atque pacifica Sententia! August, Ep. Donatist. E∣piscopis Glorio, Eleusio, &c. quae est Ep, 162. Tom. Op. 2. p. 732. Ed. Froben. Anno 1569.
• * 1.12

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Conc. Carth. Can, 71.
• * 1.13

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Can. 103.
• * 1.14

  Soc. Hist. Eccl. l. 5. c. 5. p. 262.
• * 1.15

  Lib. 5. cap. 10. pag. 269.
• † 1.16

  Lib. 7. cap. 11. pag. 717.
• ‖ 1.17

  Vit. Chrysoft. cap. 5. pag. 42.
• * 1.18

  Theod. Hist. l. 5. c. 23. & So∣zom. l. 3. c. 3. & l. 7. c. 15. & Soc. Hist. l. 5. c. 15. & Niceph. l. 12. c. 24.
• * 1.19

  Bishop Bramhal asserts the Or∣dination of an Anti-Pope to be as va∣lid, as that of a true Pope. In his defence of the Protest. Ordination, p. Op. 1007.
• ‖ 1.20

  Part 2. Chap. 4.
• * 1.21

  Soz. l. 3. c. 8. &c. 11. & 12.
• * 1.22

  Soz. l. 3. c. 11. p. 511. & Soc. l. 2. c. 20. p. 101.
• † 1.23

  Soz. l. 3. c. 12. & Julii Ep. ad Alexand. ap. Soc. l. 2. c. 23.
• ‖ 1.24

  Soz. l. 3. c. 10. & Soc. l. 2. c. 21.
• * 1.25

  Hist. Eccl. l. 5. c. 9. p. 266.
• † 1.26

  L. 7. c. 3. p. 700. & Soc. l. 5. c. 5. p. 261, 262.
• * 1.27

  Soz. l. y. c. 11. p. 717. & Soc. l. 5. c. 9. & 10.
• * 1.28

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Con. Nic. 1. Can. 6. & Concil. Antioch. Can. ••••9.
• † 1.29

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Concil. Chalced. Can. 6.
• ‖ 1.30

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.31

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Epist, Synod. Conc. Nic. ap. Soc. Hist. Eccl. l. 1. c. 9. p. 28. & Ap. Theod. l. 1. c. 9.
• * 1.32

  Epiph. adv. Hae∣res. l. 2. Tom. 2. Haer. 68. c. 1.
• * 1.33

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c E∣piph. ib. c. 3.
• † 1.34

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Ib. c 3. vid. etiam Epist. Synod. Conc. Nic. 1.
• * 1.35

  —〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Athan Apol. ad Con∣stant. pag. 777. Ed. Col. & Soc. Hist. Eccl. l. 1. c. 6. pag. 14. & Theod. l. 1. c. 9.
• * 1.36

  —Decreverit ejusmodi homines ad Poenitentiam quidem, agendam posse admitti, ab Ordinatione autem Cleri, atque Sacerdotali honore pro∣hiberi, Cyp. Ep. 67. p. 174. Ed. Ox.
• † 1.37

  —Satis gratulans, si sibi, vel La∣ico communicare contingeret, Id. Ep. 67. p. 173.
• ‖ 1.38

  —Sic tamen admissus est Tro∣phimus, ut Laicus communicet; non, secundum quod ad te malignorum li∣terae pertulerunt, quasi locum Sace••dotis usurpet, Cyp. Ep. 55. ad Antonian. p. 106. Ed. Ox.
• * 1.39

  Optat. de Schis. Donat. l. 1. p. 41. 42. Ed. Par. Alb.
• * 1.40

  Epiph. adv. Haer. Haer. 68. c. 2. ••.
• * 1.41

  Baron. An. Tom 3. p. 41. 12, 13. ad An. 306.
• † 1.42

  Petav. Animadr. in Epiphan. ad Haer. 68.
• * 1.43

  Can. 4. Conc. Nic. primi, & Can. 13. Conc. Carthag.
• † 1.44

  Can. Ap. 14. & Conc. Nic. Can. 15. & Conc. Antioch. Can. 21.
• ‖ 1.45

  Can. 11.
• * 1.46

  Conc. Chalced. Can. 1.
• † 1.47

  Conc. in Trullo Can. 2.
• ‖ 1.48

  Can. Ap. 6. & 81. & 83. & Conc. Constant. 1 & 2 Dict. Can. 11.
• * 1.49

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• ‖ 1.50

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Conc. Carth. Can. 71.
• * 1.51

  Ipsi ex∣plicent quomo∣do Sacra∣mentum baptizati non pos∣sit amitti, & Sacramentum ordinati possit amitti: quoniam dicunt, recedens ab Ecclesia Baptis∣mum non amittit, jus dandi tamen amittit, August. cont. Ep. Parmen. l. 2. c. 13. Tom. Op. 7.
• * 1.52

  Non rectedat, qui ab U∣nitate discedit.
• † 1.53

  U∣trumque quidem ad perniciem suam, quamdiu Charitatem non habent Unitatis
• ‖ 1.54

  Questio nulla est—quin perniciose habeant, pernicioseque tradant extra vinculum Pacis.
• * 1.55

  De iis, qui ab Ecclesiae Unita∣te seperati sunt, nulla jam quaestio est, quin & habeant, & dare pos∣sint, & quin perniciose habeant, per∣nicioseque tradant extra vinculum Pacis. Hoc enim jam in ipsa torius Orbis Unitate discussum, confidera∣tum, perfectum atque firmatum est.
• † 1.56

  Siquando ex ipsa parte venientes etiam praepositi, pro bono pacis cor∣recto Schismatis errore suscepti sunt; & si visum est opus esse, ut eadem Officia gererent quae gerebant, non sunt rursus ordinandi, sed sicut Bap∣tisma in i••s, ita Ordinatio mansit integra: quia in Praecisione fuerit Vitium, quod in Unitatis pace correctum est; non in Sacra∣mentis, quae ubicunque sunt, ipsa vera funt.
• * 1.57

  —Et cum expedire hoc videa∣tur Ecclesiae, ut praepositi eorum ve∣nientes ad Catholicam Societatem, honores suos ibi non administrent: non eis tamen ipsa Ordinationis Sa∣cramenta detra••u••tur, sed manent su∣per••eos. Ideoque non eis in populo manus imponitur, ne non homini, fed ipsi Sacramento fiat injuria, Aug. ••b. l. 2. ••. 13. cont. Ep. Parmen.
• * 1.58

  —Con∣firma∣tum est, ut si∣quando Presbyteri, vel Diaconi, in aliqua graviori culpa convicti fuerint, qua eos a ministerio necesse fu∣erit removeri; non eis manus tanquam Poenitentibus, vel tanquam Fidelibus Laicis imponatur, Conc. Carth. 5. Can. 11. Tom. 1. Concil. p. 734. Ed. Bi••.
• * 1.59

  Conc. Carth. sub Cypr. Suffra∣giis 4. 16. 19. 48. 65. 76. ap. Cyp
• * 1.60

  Ib. suf∣frag. 4. & Ep. ad Steph. 72. p. 197.
• † 1.61

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, St. Basil. Canon. Ep. ad Amphiloch. Can. 1. vid. & Ep. Firmil. ap. Cyp. Ep. 75. p. 221. Ed. Ox.
• * 1.62

  Can. 1.
• * 1.63

  Can. 2.
• * 1.64

  Neminem judicantes, aut a jure Communionis aliquem, si diversum senserit, amoventes. Praeloqu St. Cyp. in Synod. Carthag. de Rebapt. Haeret. ap. Cyp. p. 229. & Cyp. all: Jubaianum Ep. 73. p. 210. Ed. Ox.
• * 1.65

  Si qui Presbyteri, aut Diacon••—postmodum Perfidi ac Rebelles contra Ecclesiam steterint—& con∣tra Altare unum—Sacrificia foris—offerre conati sunt; eos quoque hac conditione recipi cum revertun∣tur, ut communicent Laici, & satis habeant quod admittantur ad Pacem, qui Hostes Pacis extiterint, & c. Cyp. & caeteri Stephano Fratri, Ep. 72. p. 197.
• ‖ 1.66

  Scimus quosdam quod semel im∣biberint nolle deponere;—sed sal∣vo inter Collegas pa•••••• concordiae vinculo,—Qua i•• re nec nos vim cuiquam facimus aut Legem damus, I••. p. 197, 198.
• * 1.67

  Ch 27 Part 3.
• * 1.68

  Quisquis post uhum, qui solus esse debeat, &c. Cypt. Epist. 55. pag. 104.
• * 1.69

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Conc. Nic. primi Can. 8.
• * 1.70

  Part 3. Chap. 1. & 5.
• * 1.71

  Vid. 1 Part 3. c. 4, 5.
• * 1.72

  1 Cor. 12, 13.
• † 1.73

  1 Cor. 10. 17.
• * 1.74

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Clem. Ro. Ep. 1. ad Cor. p. 89. Ed. Ox.
• ‖ 1.75

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Zon. in Can. 57. Concil. Laod.
• * 1.76

  Vid. Concil. Laodic. Can. 57. & Bals. & Zonar. in Can.
• ‖ 1.77

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Concil. Chalced. Part 2. Act. 10. p. 382. Tom. 3. Concil. Ed. Bin.
• † 1.78

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Ibid. Part 2. Act. 4. p. 323.
• * 1.79

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Conc. Chasced. Can. 6.
• † 1.80

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Ib.
• ‖ 1.81

  Concil. Lat. 3. c. 5. & Conc. Londin. Anno Dom. 1200. ap. Bin. Tom. 7. Conc. p. 788. & Canon. Eccles. Anglic. Can. 33.
• * 1.82

  Can. 33. Eccl. Anglic.
• ‖ 1.83

  Nisi sorte talis, qui Ordinatur, extiterit, qui de sua, vel Paterna Haereditate, subsidium vitae pos••it ha∣bere, Concil. Lat. 3. cap. 5. p. 658. Tom. 7. Concil. Ed. Bin. Paris. 1636.
• * 1.84

  Part 3. c. 4.
• * 1.85

  Etfi D••stores multi sumus, unum tamen Gregem pascimus, Cyp. Ep. 68. p. 178. Episcopatus unus est, cujun a singulis in solidum pars tenetur, De Unitate Eccles. p. 180. Ed. Ox.
• * 1.86

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Epiph. Haer. 27. Sect. 6.
• † 1.87

  Ib.
• * 1.88

  Here Clemens is the first who is set single, under whom, I suppose, was the Union of both Churches; who, on this score, is made the first Bishop in some Reckonings, viz. as being the first over both Churches so united.
• † 1.89

  Act. 6. 9.
• * 1.90

  Euseb. Hist. Eccl. l. 2. c. 16. & Niceph. Cal. l. 2. c. 42. &c. 35.
• ‖ 1.91

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Epiph. Haer. 68. Nu. 6.