A new history of ecclesiastical writers containing an account of the authors of the several books of the Old and New Testament, of the lives and writings of the primitive fathers, an abridgement and catalogue of their works ... also a compendious history of the councils, with chronological tables of the whole / written in French by Lewis Ellies du Pin.

OF THE COUNCILS Held in the Fourth AGE of the CHURCH.

Of the pretended COUNCIL of Sinuessa.

THIS Council of Sinuessa would be the First Council held in this Century, if the Acts which bear the Name of this Council were Genuine: But it is notoriously known * 1.1 among all Learned Men, that they are supposititious, and that the Story on which they are grounded is a Fable which has no Foundation in Antiquity. It is suppos'd in those Acts, That this Council was assembled at the beginning of the Fourth Century, upon occasion of the Fall of the Pope Marcellinus, who had sacrificed to Idols; That it was held at Sinuessa in a Grotto; That there were 300 Bishops present at it; That the Pope Marcellinus having confess'd his Fault condemn'd himself, and that the Bishops durst not depose him, till he had pro∣nounced Sentence upon himself. None of these things have any probability: For, First, This Hi∣story is not founded upon the Testimony of any ancient Author: Secondly, St. Austin in his Book against Petilian, Ch. 16. defends the Innocence of Marcellinus against this Donatist, who accus'd him of having sacrificed to Idols; and therefore to maintain the Acts of the Council of Sinuessa, is to take part with the Donatists against the Church. 'Tis more probable that they were forg'd by the Donatists to support the Accusation which they had made against this Holy Bishop without Foun∣dation. Thirdly, What probability is there that 300 Bishops could be assembled in the time of the most violent Persecution that ever the Church suffer'd; since it was all that Constantine could do, to assemble a Council so numerous, at a time when the Church was flourishing, and much farther spread. And certainly if the Catholick Bishops at the Conference of Carthage could reject the Acts of the Council of Cirtha, by saying, that there was no probability that a Council could be assembled in the time of Persecution, tho' this Council was but a Synod of some African Bishops, What may not be said against a Synod that is suppos'd to consist of 300 Bishops? Fourthly, The Stile of these Acts is barbarous, and contain many things which do not in the least belong to Marcellinus's Age. They make the Pagan High-Priest (whom they ridiculously call the Pontiff of the Capitol,) produce what is said in Holy Scripture of the Adoration of the Wise-Men, to prove that Incense should be offered to Idols. 'Tis said, That a 100 Christians run to the Temple of Vesta to see In∣cense offer'd by Marcellinus: Their Names are recited, which are either almost all African Names, or such as are ridiculous. 'Tis said that 72 were chosen out of them to be Witnesses of this Pope's Sacrilege. The synodical Part of these Acts is no less contrary to the Discipline of that time, than what is said of the Fall of Marcellinus is contrary to the History. 'Tis said, That Marcellinus at first denied his Fault; That the Synod declar'd to him he should be his own Judge; That the Bishops durst not judge him, because it was not lawful for any body to judge the First See. I say nothing of the Impertinences, which some of the Bishops are made to say, that are unworthy of the Gravity and Simplicity of the Christians of the First Ages. Lastly, he who forg'd these Acts, says, that Dio∣clesian was inform'd of the Condemnation of Marcellinus, when he was at War with the Persians; which yet further discovers that these Acts are not ancient, since the Persian War was ended before the Persecution of Dioclesian, from whence it follows, that he who fell into so gross a Fault in Chro∣nology, is a modern Author unworthy of any Credit.

Of the COUNCIL of Cirtha.

THE Violence of the Persecution being a little abated in Africk in the Year of Jesus Christ 305, some Bishops of Numidia assembled at the beginning of the Month of May in the City of * 1.2 Cirtha, in the House of one Donatus, because the Churches were not yet restor'd. The occasion of this Synod was the Ordination of a Bishop into the See of this City of Numidia in the room of Paul. The Bishops which were present there were Secundus of Tigisis, Donatus of Mascula; Ma∣rinus of Aquae Tibilitanae, Donatus of Calama, Purpurius of Limata, Victor of Garbis, Felix of Ro∣tarium, Nabor of Centurio, and Secundus the younger. A Bishop call'd Menalius would not be present for fear of being accus'd and convicted of having sacrificed to Idols. These Bishops, who were afterwards

the Heads of the Donatist Faction, accus'd one another mutually in this Council, and all of them fearing lest they should be convicted of the Crimes of which they had accus'd one another; they * 1.3 pardon'd one another, referring themselves to the Judgment of God: After which they ordain'd Silvanus Bishop of Cirtha. You have the Acts of this Council in St. Austin in his Third Book against Cresconius, Chap. 27.

Of the COUNCIL of Alexandria, under Peter Bishop of that Church.

IN the Year 306. Peter of Alexandria held a Council, wherein he deposed Meletius, being convi∣cted * 1.4 of having sacrificed to Idols. We have not the Acts of this Council, and we know nothing more in particular of it.

Of the COUNCIL of Eliberis or. Elvira.

THE place a 1.5 and time b 1.6 of the Council of Eliberis are very uncertain. Some have thought that * 1.7 this Council was assembled in a City of Gallia Narbonensis; others say that this City was in Boetica; and the most Learned think that this City of Eliberis was the same with Granada. As to the time, some Authors have placed it at the end of the Third Century, others have remov'd it unto the end of the Fourth, but the most probable Opinion is, that it was assembled at the beginning of the Fourth Century, before the Councils of Arles and Nice, about the Year 305. The little Order that is observed in the Canons of this Council, the great variety of Rules that are to be found in it, and the multitude of Canons about different Matters, make some Learned Men think, probably enough, that the Canons attributed to this Council are an ancient Code, or an ancient Collection of the Councils of Spain. However this be, it cannot be doubted, but these Canons are very Ancient and very Authentick.

The Discipline which they establish is very rigorous.

In the 1st. Canon they are depriv'd of Communion, i. e. of Absolution, even at the point of Death, who have voluntarily Sacrificed to Idols after they were baptized.

The 2d. establishes the same Penalty against those, who taking upon them after their Baptism, the Office of Priests to False Gods, were obliged to offer up Sacrifices to Idols by themselves or others, and who have also encreased their Guilt by Murders or Adulteries.

The 3d. moderates this Penalty to those who have only caused profane shows to be represented, and grants them Communion at the point of Death, provided they put themselves under Penance, and that they do not afterwards fall into Adultery.

The 4th. is, That if the Catechumens cause themselves to be chosen Priests to false Gods, and act in profane Shows, their Baptism shall be delay'd for three Years.

The 5th. imposes Seven Years Penance upon a Woman that shall beat her Servant-Maid in such a manner, that she dies within three Days after, if the Woman had a design to kill her; and Five Years Penance if she had no such design: She is acquitted if the Maid dies more than Three Days after.

In the 6th. Canon it is ordain'd, That Absolution shall be refus'd even at Death, to him who shall kill another by Treachery.

The 7th. is, That those who relapse into Adultery after they have undergone Penance, shall not be received even at Death.

The 8th. subjects a Woman to the same Penalty, who has forsaken her Husband without cause, to marry another.

The 9th. declares, That 'tis not lawful for a Woman, tho' she has forsaken her Husband, be∣cause of Adultery, to marry another; and that if she does it, she ought not to be admitted to Com∣munion, till he whom she has married be dead, or at least till the extremity of Sickness make it ne∣cessary to grant it her.

The 10th. allows Husbands to be baptiz'd who have forsaken their Wives, and Wives who have for∣saken their Husbands, for Adultery, while they were Catechumens. But if a Christian Woman mar∣ries a Man who has forsaken his Wife without reason, the Canon ordains, That the Communion of the Church shall be refus'd her, even at the point of Death.

The 11th. Ordains, That Baptism shall be delay'd for the space of Five Years to a Catechumeness who has married a Husband that had divorc'd his Wife without cause.

The 12th. Canon denies Communion at death to Women who prostitute their Daughters.

The 13th. subjects to the same Penalty the Virgins consecrated to God, who spend their Life in Licentiousness, but it grants Absolution at the Point of Death to those who do Penance for their Fault.

The 14th. treats Virgins with much moderation who have lost their Virginity, if they marry those who have abused them; for it ordains, That they should be restored to Ecclesiastical Communion at the end of One Year, without being oblig'd to do Penance; but then it imposes Five Years Penance, if they have had to do with other Men.

The 15th. and 16th. forbid the Faithful to bestow their Daughters in Marriage upon Pagans, Jews or Hereticks, how great soever the number of Virgins be among Christians; and it Or∣dains, That the Fathers who do it shall be separated from Communion for the space of Five Years.

The 17th. denies Absolution even at the Point of Death, to those who give their Daughters in Mar∣riage to the Priests of False Gods.

The 18th. forbids Bishops, Priests and Deacons to leave their Churches to exercise Merchandise, and go to Fairs; but it allows them to Traffick in their own Province, and to send their Children, their Friends and their Servants to trade in Foreign Countries.

The 19th. ordains, That Communion shall be refused, even at the Point of Death, to Bishops, Priests and Deacons who have committed Adultery.

The 20th. declares, That a Clergyman who is discovered to take Interest, should be deposed and re∣moved; That the same Crime should be pardoned in a Layman if he promises to amend it, but if he relapses he is to be cast out of the Church.

The 21st. Canon is, That if any Inhabitant in a City shall be absent from the Church for three Sundays together, he shall be separated from Communion for some time, to signify that he has been punished for his Fault.

The 22d. declares, That he who has abandoned the Church, to go over to a Sect of Hereticks, shall not be received back into the Church again till he has done Penance for Ten Years: As for those who were Children when they were entred into an Heretical Sect and return to the Church, the Canon Ordains, That they shall be Received without any delay.

The 23d. declares, That the ordinary Fasts shall be observed except in the Months of July and Au∣gust, because of the weakness of some of the Faithful.

The 24th. forbids those to be admitted to Sacred Orders, who have been baptized out of their own Country, because their Life is not known.

The 25th. declares, That Credit shall not be given to the Letters of a Confessor, but only to Letters of Communion.

The 26th. forbids Fasting on Saturdays.

The 27th. forbids Bishops and Clergymen to have in their Houses strange Women.

The 28th. forbids Bishops to receive Presents from those that are not in the Communion of the Church.

The 29th. forbids to recite at the Altar the Names of those that are possess'd, and does not permit them to make any Offering themselves in the Church.

The 30th. Ordains, That the Orders of Subdeacon shall not be given to those who have committed Adultery in their Youth, lest they should rise to a higher Degree, and that those who have been Or∣dained shall be degraded.

The 31st. declares, That those may be admitted to Communion who have committed Adultery after Baptism, provided they have fulfilled their Canonical Penance.

The 32d. declares, That when any Persons fall sick, they ought to be received into Ecclesiastical Com∣munion by the Bishop; but yet if the sickness be violent, the Priest may grant them Communion, and even the Deacon if the Bishop command him.

The 33d. Canon prescribes Celibacy to Priests and Deacons.

The 34th. Canon is very obscure: It declares, That Wax-Candles are not be lighted in the Coemite∣ries, because we must not disturb the Spirits of the Saints. Some understand by the Spirits of the Saints the Souls of the Dead: I think that it is more natural to understand by it, the Repose of the Spirits of the Faithful that are alive and may be troubled with a great multitude of Lights in the day-time.

The 35th. redresses a dangerous Abuse; it is set down in these Words.

We have thought fit to hinder Women from spending the Night in the Coemiteries, because oftentimes under pretence of praying they commit in secret great Crimes.

The 36th. has very much exercis'd Divines. Thus it is expressed,

We would not have Pictures placed in Churches, lest the Object of our Worship and Adoration should be painted upon the Walls.

Many Explications have been given of this Passage, but to me it seems better to under∣stand it in the plainest Sence, and to confess that the Fathers of this Council did not approve the use of Images, no more than that of Wax-Candles lighted in full day-light: But these things are Matters of Discipline, which may be used or not, without doing any prejudice to the Faith of the Church.

The 37th. Canon permits Baptism to be given at the Point of Death to those who are acted by an Evil Spirit, and to Catechumens, and does not deprive them of Communion if they be faithful. Pro∣vided, adds the Canon, That they do not publickly light Lamps. This Addition is very obscure, and there is no great necessity of explaining it.

The 38th. declares, That a Christian who is neither Penitent nor Bigamist, may baptize in a case of Necessity, those who are on a Journey, being at a great distance from a Church, upon Condition that he present him to the Bishop if he survive, to be perfected by Imposition of Hands.

The 39th. ordains, That Imposition of Hands shall not be deny'd to Pagans who desire it after they are fallen into some Disease, provided they have led an honest Life. This Canon must be un∣derstood of that Imposition of Hands by which Pagans were plac'd in the Rank of Catechumens, which this Council calls making them Christians.

The 40th. forbids Land-Lords to allow their Farmers or Receivers what they have given for Idols; and if they do it, it imposes upon them a Penance of Five Years.

The 41st. declares, That the Faithful must be admonished not to suffer Idols in their Houses.

The 42d. ordains, That those who give in their Names to be entred into the Church, shall be bap∣tiz'd two Years after, if they lead a regular Life; unless they are obliged to relieve them sooner upon the account of any dangerous Sickness, or that it is judg'd convenient to grant them this Grace sooner because of the fervor of their Prayers.

The 43d. forbids the Celebration of the Feast of Whitsunday before Easter.

The 44th. allows a Woman to be received who has formerly led a lewd Life, when she is converted, and would be made a Christian, after she has renounc'd her Sins.

The 45th. allows Baptism to be given a Catechumen, tho' he has been long absent from Church.

The 46th. imposes 10 Years Penance upon one of the Faithful, who has lived long in the practice of the same Sin, which it looks upon as an Apostacy.

The 47th. ordains, That if one of the Faithful who has a lawful Wife, has committed many Adulteries, fall Sick, and promise to commit this Sin no more, Communion shall not be deny'd him; but if after his Recovery he relapse into his Sin, it shall never more be granted to him.

In the 48th. it is ordain'd, That the baptiz'd shall not put any more Money into the Boxes or Basons, as was commonly done, lest it should be thought, that the Priest gave for Money what he had freely received. It adds, That not the Priests but the Ministers shall wash the Feet of the Baptiz'd.

The 49th. forbids those who possess an Estate in Land, to suffer the Fruits of it to be bless'd by the Jews.

The 50th. Ordains, That those who eat with Jews shall be separated from the Church.

The 51st. forbids to admit into the Clergy those who return from Heresy, and pronounces the Sen∣tence of Deposition against such if they are Ordain'd.

The 52d. declares those worthy of an Anathema, who publish Deformatory Libels.

The 53d. declares, That a Person excommunicated cannot be received but by the Bishop who excommunicated him, and forbids all others to receive him into Communion without the consent of his own Bishop.

The 54th. Ordains, That those Pagans shall be separated from the Church for Three Years who have violated their Promise of Espousals, unless one of the Parties contracted be found guilty of some Crime which hindred them from Marriage.

The 55th. declares, That they shall be received into Communion at the end of Two Years who were Priests of False Gods, who have carried a Crown, but have not sacrific'd nor laid out any Money to the Honour of Idols.

The 56th. separates from the Church a Pagan Magistrate, during the time that he discharges his Office.

The 57th. excommunicates for Three Years those Christian Women who lend their Garments for a profane show.

The 58th. Ordains, That those who bring Letters of Communion shall be examined in all the Churches, and chiefly in that where the First Episcopal Throne is settled, that is, in the Metropoli∣tical Church.

The 59th. forbids Christians to ascend into the Capitol to Sacrifice there, or to see sacrificing there, and imposes Ten Years Penance upon those that fall into this Fault.

The 60th. deprives those of the Title of Martyrs, who are kill'd for overthrowing Idols publickly, because the Gospel commands us not to do any such thing, and we never read that it was practis'd by the Christians in the times of the Apostles.

The 61st. imposes a Penance of Five Years upon him that Marries his Wife's Sister, unless the extre∣mity of Sickness oblige us to give him the Peace of the Church sooner.

The 62d. declares, That an Actor of Plays or a Comedian who would be made a Christian, shall not be received till he has renounced his Profession.

The 63d. denies Communion even at the Point of Death, to such Women as being guilty of Adul∣tery have murder'd their Infants.

The 64th. treats with the same Rigor those Women who have continued all their Life-time in the habitual practice of the Sin of Adultery; but as to those who acknowledg'd their Crime before they were sick, and forsook the Man with whom they had committed this Sin, it grants them Communion after Ten Years Penance.

The 65th. declares, That if a Clergy-man knows that his Wife commits Adultery and sends her not away, he is unworthy of the Communion of the Church even * 1.8 at the Point of Death, lest it should be thought that those who ought to be a Pattern of a regular Life, show an example of Licentiousness.

The 66th. declares, That he who marries his Daughter-in-law shall not receive the Communion even at Death.

The 67th. forbids Women that are of the Faithful or Catechumens, to have Footmen or Pages that are beautiful and well-shap'd.

The 68th. delays the Baptism of a Catechumeness to the Hour of Death, who having committed Adultery murder'd her Child.

The 69th. imposes but Five Years of Penance upon those who have faln but once into the Sin of Adultery.

The 70th. declares, That if a Woman commit Adultery with the consent of her Husband, he is un∣worthy of the Communion at the Point of Death; nevertheless if he divorces her he maybe received af∣ter Ten Years Penance.

The 71st. denies Communion even at the Point of Death * 1.9 to those who have committed most infamous Crimes.

The 72d. declares, That if a Widow commit Adultery, and afterwards marries the same Man with whom she had committed this Sin, she shall be discharg'd for Five Years Penance; but if she marry another, she cannot be reconcil'd, even at the Point of Death, and that if he to whom she marries be one of the Faithful, he shall be put under Penance for Ten Years.

The 73d. denies Communion, even at the Point of Death, to those who have been the cause of the Condemnation or Death of any Man by their false Accusations, and imposes Five Years Penance if the Matter be of less consequence.

The 74th. Ordains, That a false Witness shall be punish'd proportionable to the greatness of the Crime of which he testified falsly: That if the Crime did not deserve Death; and he proves, That he gave testimony with reluctancy, and that he continued long before he was willing to say any thing, he shall be acquitted for Two Years of Penance: But if he does not prove that he was con∣strain'd to give this false Testimony, he shall not be receiv'd into the Communion of the Church till Five Years after.

The 75th. deprives those of Communion, even at the Point of Death, who have falsly accus'd a Bishop, a Priest, or a Deacon.

The 76th. Ordains, That if a Deacon being guilty of a Crime suffers himself to be Ordain'd, he shall be put under Penance for Three Years, if the Crime be discover'd by his own Confession, and Five Years if it be detected by the testimony of another.

The 77th. declares, That if a Deacon who governs a People, baptize any Catechumens without a Bishop or without a Priest, the Bishop ought to consummate, as one may say, the Baptism by his Benediction; but if they die before this be done, they may be saved by the Faith which they had.

The 78th. imposes upon him who commits Adultery with a Pagan or Jewish Woman, a Pe∣nance of Three Years, if he himself confess his Sin, and one of Five Years, if he be convicted of it.

The 79th. forbids playing at Games of Chance, and declares that if any of the Faithful make profes∣sion of playing, he shall be depriv'd of Communion; but if he forsakes this Custom he may be re∣conciled at the end of One Year.

The 80th. Ordains, That Freed-men whose Patrons are Secular Men, shall not be suffer'd to enter into the Clergy.

The last Canon forbids Women to write to Lay-men in their own Names. This Canon is difficult enough, Albaspinaeus understands it of Ecclesiastical Letters. I should more willingly understand it of Familiar Letters.

I know very well that there are many Difficulties about the true Sense of many of these Canons. I have endeavour'd to explain them in the Extract which I made out of them, wherein I follow'd that Sence which appear'd to me most natural, and most agreeable to the Genius of the Ancients. Those that would inform themselves more fully in this Matter, may read the Notes of Albaspinaeus, and the great Commentary of Mendoza, which contains many things that are no-wise useful for understanding these Canons; which are not so difficult when they are read without prejudice to one that under∣stands something of the Ancient Discipline.

Of the Pretended COUNCIL of Carthage against Caecilian.

AFter the death of Mensurius Bishop of Carthage, several Persons who had a mind to the Bishop-rick * 1.10 of this City, assembled the neighbouring Bishops, to Ordain a Bishop of Carthage, with∣out citing thither the Bishops of Numidia. The design of those Persons did not succeed according to their desires, for not one of them was chosen Bishop, and there was plac'd in the room of Mensurius, Caecilian Archdeacon of Carthage, who was Ordain'd by Felix Bishop of Aptungis. The Bishops of Numidia being offended because they were not call'd to the Ordination of Caecilian, and being sollici∣ted by some of his Enemies, came to Carthage in the Year 311, to the number of 70. They durst not

enter into the Church where Caecilian was, but being receiv'd by those who call'd them, they cited him to come before them and defend himself. This Bishop without being daunted answer'd them boldly. If there be any Proofs against me, let my Accuser appear and produce them. But his Enemies having nothing Personal to object against him, accus'd Felix of Aptungis who had Ordain'd him, and said that this Bishop having been a Traditor could not give a valid Ordination, and consequently Caecilian was not then a Bishop. Caecilian either because he mistrusted the innocence of Felix, or because he would not enter upon this Controversy, made answer to his Enemies. That if Felix had not conferr'd upon him Episcopal Orders, they might Ordain him a-new as if he had been still a Deacon. Purpurius Bishop of Limata, a cunning and dextrous Man, advis'd those of his Party, to make a show of accepting this Proposition, and when Caecilian should come to receive Ordination, then to put him under Penance instead of laying hands on him to Ordain him Bishop. This Advice had been put in execution, if Caecilian had not been detain'd by his Friends, who would not suffer him to trust himself to the fury of his Enemies. Then the Bishops of Numidia condemn'd him, tho' absent, and Ordain'd Majorinus in his room. They alledg'd Three Reasons for the Deposition of Caecilian. The First was, because he would not appear before the Council. The Second, because he had been Ordain'd by Traditors. The Third, because being Archdeacon he had hindred, say they, the carrying of Victuals to the Con∣fessors of Jesus Christ who were in prison. We have only one Article pronounc'd by the 70 Bishops produc'd by St. Austin in his Book against Fulgentius the Donatist. It is express'd in these Words, by the Bishop who pronounc'd it call'd Marcianus: Our Lord has said in the Gospel, I am the true Vine, and my Father is the Husbandman; he will cut off and cast forth every Branch that is in me, and beareth not fruit. And therefore since it is said, That the Branch which beareth not Fruit should be cast forth, we may truly say, That neither Traditors nor Idolaters, nor those who are Schismatically Ordain'd by Tra∣ditors can continue in the Church of God, unless they be reconciled by Penance, after they have acknow∣ledged and bewailed their Sin. Wherefore Caecilian being Schismatically Ordain'd by Traditors ought to be Excommunicated. After the Bishops had thus pronounc'd severally their Sentences against Caeci∣lian, and Ordain'd Majorinus, they sent a Circular Letter to all the Bishops of Africa, exhorting them to separate themselves from the Communion of Caecilian: But notwithstanding this Letter, Caecilian continued in Communion with a great part of the Bishops of Africa, and with all the other Bishops of the World, who declar'd themselves in his favour, against the Numidians who made the Schism, and were call'd Donatists. Thus Caecilian continued in his See, notwithstanding the Judg∣ment of this Synod, and did not so much as assemble a Council to absolve himself from this Sentence, believing himself sufficiently secur'd against the Conspiracy of his Enemies, says St. Austin, by the Communion of the Roman Church, and of all the other Churches beyond the Sea, from whom ••e received, and to whom he wrote Letters of Communion. What we have said of this Council is taken out of Optatus and St. Austin.

Of the COUNCIL of Rome.

COnstantine becoming Master of Africk, after he had conquered the Tyrant Maxentius, wrote * 1.11 to Anulinus Proconsul of Africk, to maintain the Party of Caecilian, and to endeavour to re-establish Peace in the Church of Africk. This Wise Magistrate sent for Caecilian and his Adver∣saries, read to them the Emperour's Letter, and exhorted them to be reconcil'd to one another: But some Days after, those of Majorinus's Party presented to him two Memorials; one was entitled, A Manifesto of Caecilian's Crimes, presented by Majorinus's Party: And the other was a Petition, wherein they prayed that some Bishops of Gaul might be given them for Judges. Those who pre∣sented these two Papers to Anulinus, earnestly prayed him to send them to the Emperour. He did so, and the Emperour having regard to their Petition, gave them for Judges, Miltiades Bishop of Rome, together with Rheticius Bishop of Autun, Marinus Bishop of Arles, and Maternus Bishop of Cologne. Miltiades joyn'd to these Four, Fifteen Bishops of Italy, and these Nineteen Bishops assembled in the City of Rome in the Year 313, and undertook to judge the Cause of Caecilian. The first Day that they assembled, Majorinus's Party presented to the Council a Memorial of the Crimes, whereof they accus'd Caecilian: But the Judges having desir'd them to produce their Accusers and Witnesses, they introduc'd some who were oblig'd to withdraw immediately, because they de∣clar'd, that they had nothing to say against Caecilian. He for his part accus'd Donatus of having made a Schism at Carthage, and urged him to present before the Council, the Witnesses and Accusers which he had brought. Donatus promised that he would present them, and in the mean time was con∣victed of having re-baptiz'd, and re-ordain'd. The Second Day a New Memorial was given in against Cae∣cilian, but sufficient Evidence could not be produc'd. The Judgment of the Seventy Bishops of Nu∣midia was alledg'd, for which the Judges had no great respect. The Third Day, the whole Cause was determined, Donatus was condemn'd as being convicted of having re-baptiz'd, and laid his Hands upon Bishops who were already Ordain'd: And Caecilian was absolv'd by the Sentence of all the Bishops, and even by the suffrage of Miltiades who concluded the Decision. The Council having thus judg'd the Cause of Caecilian and Donatus, endeavour'd to restore Peace among the other Bishops, by ordering that in those places where there had been a Bishop of each Party, he who had been Ordain'd first should continue Bishop, and Care should be taken to give another Bishoprick to the other. Letters of Communion were also offer'd to be sent to the Bishops of Majorinus's Party, provided they would be reconcil'd. At last, the Bishops wrote to Constantine, inform'd him of their Decision, and assur'd him, that they had given their Judgment according to Justice and Equity. The Acts of this Council were extant in St. Austin's time, and they were also produced in the Confe∣rence

of Carthage, but now they are lost. We have taken what we have said, out of Optatus in Book First, and out of St. Austin in his Abridgment of the Conference on the Third Day, in Ch. 11. of his Letter 162, now the 43d. and of Letter 50. now the 185.

Of the COUNCIL of Arles.

THE Bishops of Majorinus's Party having lost their Cause in the Council of Rome, address'd * 1.12 themselves to the Emperour, and complain'd of the Judgment which was given at Rome, alledging that their Judges did not hear all that they had to say. The Emperour desiring they might be solemnly Judg'd, that so they should have nothing to reply, call'd a 1.13 a Council in the Year 314 in the City of Arles. This Council was composed of 33 Western Bishops b 1.14, with some Priests and some Deacons. Marinus Bishop of Arles presided there; the Legates of Pope Sylvester were present c 1.15, but that the Emperour was not there d 1.16. The Council heard the Accusations which were form'd against Caecilian; but when his Accusers could not prove him guilty of the Crimes whereof they ac∣cused him, they were rejected or condemned by the Council. After this cause was judged, the Bi∣shops thought it their Duty, since they were assembled, to make some Rules concerning the Discipline of the Church; and they made 22 Canons.

In the 1st. they ordain, That the Feast of Easter should be celebrated on the same Sunday in all the Churches of the World, and that the Bishop of Rome should give Notice of the Day to the Churches according to Custom.

In the 2d. they enjoyn Ministers to continue in the Churches where they were ordain'd.

In the 3d. they excommunicate those who make use of Arms in a time of Peace.

In the 4th. they Ordain, That those who run Races in the Cirque, shall be separated from the Communion while they follow that employment.

In the 5th. they make the same Regulation for those who act upon the Theatre.

In the 6th. they ordain, That Imposition of Hands shall be given to those who having fallen Sick, declare, That they desire to believe in Jesus Christ.

In the 7th. they permit the Faithful to enter upon Offices, without being deprived of the Commu∣nion of the Church; but upon Condition that the Bishop of the place where they shall take an Office, shall superintend their Conduct, and that if they do any thing contrary to the Discipline of the Church, they shall be separated from his Communion.

The 8th. determines the famous Question about the re-baptization of Hereticks, and ordains con∣cerning the Africans, who had always re-baptized them, That if any one leave a Heresy and return to the Church, he shall be ask'd concerning the Creed, and if it be known that he was baptized in the Name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, Imposition of Hands only shall be given him that he may receive the Holy Spirit; but if he does not acknowledge the Trinity, he shall be re-baptized.

The 9th. declares, That in Order to their being received into Communion in a Foreign Church, they should not any longer carry Letters of Recommendation from the Confessors, but Letters of Communion from their Bishop.

In the 10th. they say, That those who find their Wives in the act of Adultery must be counselled not to marry others, while they are living, tho' the Laws permit them to do it.

In the 11th. they separate for some time from the Communion of the Church the Christian Virgins that marry Infidels.

In the 12th. they excommunicate the Clergy that are Usurers.

In the 13th. they ordain, That those shall be turned out of the Clergy, who shall be proved by the Publick Acts to have delivered up the Holy Scriptures; but those who they had ordained shall con∣tinue in their Station. They forbid Men to hearken to these Accusations, unless they be proved by the Publick Acts.

In the 14th. they separate from the Communion until the Point of Death, those who falsly accuse their Brethren.

In the 15th. they say, That the Deacons should not offer, as they did in many places.

In the 16th. they ordain, That those who are separated from the Communion, shall be restored no where else, but in the place where bey were excommunicated.

The 17th. ordains, That one Bishop shall not despise the Judgment of another. This is rather a consequence of the preceding Canon, than a Canon by it self.

The 18th. enjoyns Deacons in Cities to reverence the Priests.

The 19th. grants to Foreign Bishops the Power of celebrating the Oblation.

In the 20th. the Bishops of this Council forbid one Bishop alone to ordain another Bishop; they would have Seven of them meet if it be possible, but if this cannot be done, they do absolutely for∣bid any one to Ordain, unless he has three Bishops with him.

In the 21st. they forbid Priests and Deacons, under pain of Deposition to relinquish the Churches in which they were fix'd by their Ordination.

In the 22d. they declare, That Communion is not to be given to those who having Apostatized, continue a long time out of the Church without doing Penance, waiting till they fall Sick to ask Communion; unless they recover their Health, and give Signs of a sincere Repentance.

At last the Bishops of this Council wrote to St. Sylvester Bishop of Rome, as the chief Bishop of the World, an Account of every thing that they had ordain'd, that he might publish these Canons throughout the Catholick Church. They assure him in this Letter, that they were very sorry, that he could not be present himself in Person at this Council, and they pray him to publish their Deci∣sions over all the World.

Of the COUNCILS of Ancyra and Neo-Caesarea.

THE Councils of Ancyra and Neo-Caesarea, were held much about the same time as the Council * 1.17 of Arles. We know nothing of the History, nor particular Circumstances of these two Coun∣cils; we have only their Canons, which the ancient Church look'd upon as Rules that ought to be observ'd every where, since they have been put into the Code of the Canons of the Universal Church.

There are 25 Canons of the Council of Ancyra. The First preserves the Honour of the Priesthood to those Bishops, who having sacrificed to Idols repented of their Fault, and afterwards suffered for the Faith of Jesus Christ. But it forbids them to exercise any part of the Sacerdotal Function, and will not so much as allow them to make the Offering or Preach. The Second uses the same mo∣deration to Deacons; but it permits Bishops to show them more Favour if they think it con∣venient.

In the 3d. Canon it is Ordain'd, That those who have been made to offer Incense or to eat of Meats sacrific'd to Idols, by force and Violence, are not at all guilty, that they ought to be admitted to Communion, and that they may even be promoted to Ecclesiastical Dignities, provided they have testified their sorrow for what happen'd to them: But for those who were present at the Feasts made to the Honour of Idols with mirth and jollity, it imposes upon them Five Years Penance, One Year in the rank of Hearers, Two Years in the rank of Supplicants, and Two Years in the number of those that are present only at the Prayers. Whereas those who were present in mourning Apparel, and who lamented during the time of the Feast, if they did eat of the Profane meat, it places them in the rank of Supplicants or prostrate Penitents for Three Years, and afterwards it would have them receiv'd without having any share in the Oblation; and if they did not eat at all, it leaves them only Two Years in the rank of the prostrate Penitents, and permits them to partake of the Sacraments at the end of the Third Year. Nevertheless it gives power to the Bishops to shorten or lengthen the time of Penance according to the behaviour of the Penitents.

The 6th. concerns those who have Sacrific'd to Idols, fearing Torments or the loss of their Goods, and who desire to be admitted to do Penance. The Synod orders, That they should be among the num∣ber of Hearers till Easter-day, that afterwards they should be Three Years Supplicants or Prostrate, and then they should be present at the Prayers, which is call'd Communicating without partaking of the Oblation. It excepts however the case of the danger of Death, in which it Orders, That they should be receiv'd according to the Law made about it.

The 7th. imposes Two Years Penance upon those who were present at the Feasts made in Honour of the Idols, but carried thither their own Meat, intending not to eat of that which was there presented.

The 8th. imposes Seven Years Penance upon those who Sacrific'd several times; and the 9th. impo∣ses Ten Years Penance upon those who forc'd their Brethren to do it.

The 10th. Canon concerns the Celibacy of Deacons. The Council there Ordains, That if they de∣clared at the time of their Ordination, that they would Marry, they shall not be depriv'd of their Fun∣ction if they did Marry; but if they were Ordain'd without making this declaration, and afterwards Marry'd they should be oblig'd to quit their Employment.

The 11th. Ordains, That if Maids contracted happen to be carried away by others, than those

to whom they were promised, they shall be restored to them again whatever violence they have suffered.

The 12th. declares, That those may be Ordain'd who have Sacrific'd to Idols before they were bap∣tiz'd, because they are purified from this Sin by Baptism.

The 13th. Canon is about Suffragan Bishops or Chorepiscopi. 'Tis as follows in the Greek Text: 'Tis not lawful for Suffragan Bishops to Ordain Priests or Deacons, nor for the City Presbyters in ano∣ther Parish without the permission of their Bishop. 'Tis plain that this Canon is imperfect, and that something must be supplied to make it sence: For what mean these Words, Nor to the City Pres∣byters, &c. Had Priests ever power to Ordain other Priests in their own Churches? Had they ever permission to do it out of their own Churches by the Bishops Letters? Why should not the Suffragans who were above the Priests have the same power? There must be something added: See what Dionysius Exiguus has added in his Version. No more is it lawful for Priests to do any thing in the Diocess, without the permission of the Bishop in writing. This Addition is found in the ancient Code of the Roman Church, published by Quesnellus, and in the Version of Isidore; and Justellus has restor'd it in the Greek Text of the Code of the Universal Church.

The 14th. condemns the superstition of some Clergymen who would not eat Meat. The Synod Ordains, That if they continued in this Superstition, and would not eat Herbs boil'd with Meat, they should be depriv'd of their Ecclesiastical Function.

The 15th. declares, That if Priests sell any thing belonging to the Church, while it has not a Bi∣shop, it shall be in the power of the Bishop who is chosen, either to make void the bargain, or to take the price of the thing that is sold.

The 16th. and 17th. impose long Penances upon those who have committed Crimes contrary to Nature.

The 18th. forbids Bishops who cannot be receiv'd into their own Bishopricks to invade those of others, and allows them only to keep the rank of other Presbyters; of which Honour it Ordains that they shall be depriv'd if they stir up Sedition against the Bishop of the place.

The 19th. subjects those Virgins to the same punishment with Bigamists, who violate the Profession that they have made, and forbids them to dwell with Strangers as if they were their Sisters.

The 20th. imposes Seven Years Penance for Adultery.

In the 21st. the Synod observes, That the ancient Canons delay'd the Absolution of those Women till death, who having committed the Sin of Adultery murder'd their Infants; but to mitigate this Pu∣nishment, it imposes upon them only Ten Years Penance.

The 22d. delayeth the Absolution of those till the Point of death who have committed wilful Mur∣der, and till then it places them in the rank of Prostrate Penitents.

The 23d. imposes Seven Years of Penance for Manslaughter.

The 24th. subjects those to a Penance of Five Years who meddle with Divination and practise super∣stitious Actions.

The last is about a particular Case. A Man had defil'd the Sister of her to whom he was contracted, and afterwards married this last; her Sister hang'd her self for madness. The Synod Ordains, That all those who were Complices to these Crimes shall be put under Penance for the space of Ten Years.

These Canons are sign'd by 18 Bishops of the Diocesses of Asia, of Pontus, and of the East. Vitalis Bishop of Antioch is the First among these Bishops. 'Tis certain that he held the See of the Church of Antioch from the Year 311, until the Year 319. After him there is the Name of Agricolaus Bishop of Caesarea in Palaestine: But Eusebius makes no mention of this Bishop, and he could be but a very little time Bishop of that Church. Marcellus of Ancyra who is the Third, is famous enough in Hi∣story. Some think that Basil of Amasea suffer'd Martyrdom under Licinius, and St. Jerom affirms it in his Chronicon: Yet Philostorgius and St. Athanaesius reckon him among those Bishops who were present at the Council of Nice. The same St. Athanasius mentions Lupus of Tarsus, and Longinus of Neocaesarea. There is mention made of Leontius of Caesarea in Cappadocia in the Life of St. Gregory Nazianzen, where 'tis said, That 'twas he who baptiz'd Gregory of Pisa in the time of the Nicene Council. The others are less known.

The Council of Neocaesarea made Fifteen Canons about the Discipline of the Church.

The 1st. is, That if a Priest marries after he has been Ordain'd, he ought to be degraded; and if he commit Fornication or Adultery he ought to be punished more rigorously, and put under Penance.

The 2d. is, That if a Woman marry Two Brothers, she ought to be excluded from the Commu∣nion of the Church till the end of her life; but at the Point of Death she shall be absolved, provided she promises to break the Marriage. For if the Husband or the Wife die without being parted, the surviving Person can very hardly be admitted to Penance.

The 3d. is, That the time of the Penance of those who Marry often is regulated by the Canons, but it may be shortned proportionably to the Conversion of the Penitent, and the fervour of his Penance.

The 4th. is, That he who having a desire to commit Sin with a Woman, and did not accomplish it, seems to have been sav'd by the Grace of God.

The 5th. is, That if a Catechumen who is in the rank of those who pray with the Faithful, fall into Sin, he must be plac'd in the rank of Hearers, and if he continue to sin, he is to be totally turn'd out of the Church.

The 6th. commands those Women to be baptized who are ready to Lie-in.

The 7th. forbids Priests to be present at the Marriage of Bigamists.

The 8th. declares that he cannot be admitted into Holy Orders, whose Wife has been convicted of Adultery, and that if a Clergy-man's Wife commit Adultery, he ought to divorce her, upon pain of being depriv'd of his Ministry if he do not.

The 9th. is, That if a Priest who has committed the Sin of the Flesh before he was Ordain'd con∣fess his Crime, he ought no more to Offer, but he shall enjoy all his other Rights; for as to other Sins, 'tis thought, that they are pardoned by the Imposition of Hands: But if he does not confess this Fault and cannot be convicted of it, he shall be left to his own Conscience.

The 10th. is, That a Deacon who shall commit the same Crime before his Ordination, shall be plac'd in the rank of the other Ministers.

The 11th. forbids to give the Order of Priesthood to those Persons who are under Thirty Years of Age, tho' they have well deserved, because our Lord was baptized, and begun to preach at that Age.

The 12th. is, That those who have been baptiz'd in their Sickness can never be ordain'd Priests, be∣cause they seem to have embrac'd the Faith only through necessity, unless this Favour be after∣wards granted them upon the account of their Faith and Zeal, and that there be but few Persons who can be Ordain'd.

The 13th. forbids the Priests in the Country to make the Oblation in the presence of the Bishop, or of the Priests of Cities, and does not allow them so much as to distribute the Bread of the Eucharist or to give the Cup, but it permits them to do both the one and the other in the absence of the Bishop, and the City-Presbyters.

The 14th. declares, That Suffragans represent the 70 Disciples, and so they are look'd upon as the Brethren of the Bishops, and have the honour of making the Oblation.

The last Ordains, That there should be but Seven Deacons in each City how great soever it be. Some of the Bishops who were at the Council of Ancyra, subscribed to this. Vitalis of Antioch presi∣ded there as well as at the Council of Ancyra. Which shows that these Two Councils were held af∣ter the Year 311, and before the Year 319.

Of the First COUNCIL of Alexandria against Arius.

SOme time after, Arius began to publish his Impiety, Alexander Bishop of Alexandria, held * 1.18 a Council of near a 100 Bishops of Egypt, wherein he excommunicated Arius and his Fol∣lowers. This Council was held in 322.

Of the pretended COUNCIL of Bithynia for Arius.

EUsebius of Nicomedia, and the other Bishops who protected Arius against Alexander, held a * 1.19 Council the next Year in Bithynia, wherein they declare Arius Orthodox, and worthy of the Communion of the Church. Sozomen mentions this Council B. III. Ch. 15. of his History.

Of the Second COUNCIL of Alexandria against Arius: held in the presence of Hosius.

HOsius being sent to Alexandria from the Emperour, to compose the Differences which troubled the * 1.20 Churches of Egypt, held a Council in that City which the Clergy of Maraeotis, in a Protestation produced by St. Athanasius, call on Oecumenical Council. It is not known what was determined in this Council. 'Tis probable that the Wise Bishop of Corduba did what he could to reconcile Men's minds, and not being able to compass his Design, he would decide nothing. Socrates in B. III. Ch. 7. of his History, testifies, That in this Council the Terms of Substance and Hypostasis were treated of, in ••opposition to Sabellius: And we learn from the Protestation of the Clergy of Maraeotis, which we just now cited, that Colluthus a pretended Bishop was degraded in this Council, and the Ordinations which he made were annull'd. Philostorgius says, That Alexander of Alexandria coming at this time to Nicomedia, and having spoken to Hosius, caused the Consubstantiality of the Word to be determined by a Synodal Sentence. But we have no other Author who mentions this Judgment, neither is there any probability that it was given.

Of the COUNCIL of Nice.

COnstantine seeing that he had laboured in vain to allay the Disputes which divided the Church, * 1.21 thought it would be the most ready and effectual means to restore Peace, to call a numerous Synod compos'd of the Eastern and Western Bishops. This Council was call'd Oecumenical, i. e. a Council of the whole World, or the whole Earth, because it was called together from all Parts of the Roman Empire, to which the Title of the World, or the Earth was given, and which did almost include the Catholick Church. This Council was assembled by the Order of the Emperour at Nice a 1.22, a City of Bithynia, about the Month of July in the Year 325 b 1.23, in the Second Year of Constantine's

Reign c 1.24. St. Sylvester was then Bishop of Rome, who sent thither Victor and Vincentius his Legates. 'Tis commonly held that this Council consisted of 318 Bishops; but those who were present at it do not precisely determine this number d 1.25, but say only that there were about 300 Bishops. 'Tis not certainly known, who presided in this Council, but 'tis very probable that it was Hosius e 1.26, who held the chief Place there in his own Name, because he had already taken cognizance of this Affair, and was much esteemed by the Emperour who was there present. The Assembly was held in a Hall in his Palace f 1.27. 'Tis said that the Bishops presented Petitions to him, wherein they accused one ano∣ther, and that he burnt them all without reading them: 'Tis also said, That many Philosophers came to Nice to oppose the Christian Religion, and that they were confounded by one simple Bi∣shop: But these two Stories are not very certain. But 'tis certain that they minded very closely the Cause for which they were assembled, which was the Heresy of Arius. St. Athanasius Deacon of Alexandria, and some others, Disputed stoutly against him. When the Day was come that this great Affair should be determined, one of the Bishops made a Harangue to the Emperour, and after∣wards they begun to enter upon the Business. Arius having explained his Opinions, was con∣demned with an unanimous Consent. After this Eusebius of Caesarea presented a Confession of Faith, but the Council finding that it did not expresly enough reject the Error of the Arians, urged the Bi∣shops who favoured this Heretick to make a clear Profession of the Divinity of the Son of God; and when the Council saw that all the Terms which were used to dignify the Divinity of the Son of God were eluded by these Bishops by far-fetch'd Explications, the Council was forced, for ex∣cluding all kind of Ambiguity to say, That the Son of God was Consubstantial to his Father. This Word was the Subject of a great Dispute among the Bishops, which was allay'd by the Prudence of the Emperour, who made them all agree in the Sence of this Word. And thus in the Confession of Faith, or in the Creed made by this Council, Profession is made, Of believing in one only God, the Creator of all things, visible and invisible, and in one only Lord Jesus Christ the Son of God, begotten of the Father, the only Son of the Substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten not made, Consubstantial to his Father, by whom all things were made in Heaven and on Earth, who descended for us Men and for our Salvation, who was incarnate and made Man, who suffered and rose again and ascended into Heaven, and who shall come to judge the quick and the dead: And in the Holy Spirit. After this Creed followed an Anathema against those who should say, That there was a time when the Son of God was not, or that he was not before he was begotten, or that he was created of nothing, or that he was of another Sub∣stance and another Essence, or that he was created and subject to Change. All the Bishops, except Secundus of Ptolemais, and Theonas of Marmarica, Signed this Confession of Faith g 1.28. Eusebius of Caesarea refus'd to Sign it at First, but he did it the next Day. After this Arius, Secundus and Theonas were condemned in the Council h 1.29, and a Book of the First, entitled Thalia, was proscrib'd.

The Council having thus judged the Arians with rigor, treated the Meletians with more modera∣tion. It permitted Meletius to continue in the City, and to retain the name of Bishop, and the honour annexed to that Office; but it absolutely forbad him to ordain any body: It preserved also the Rank, Honour and Office of those whom he had ordained, provided nevertheless that they should be con∣firmed by a more Sacred Imposition of Hands, which is a kind of Re-ordination i 1.30; that they should be inferiour to those who had been ordained by Alexander, and that they should have no hand

in the Election of Bishops. Nevertheless it permits the People and the Clergy to choose them Bi∣shops, if they were found worthy of it, provided that the Bishop of Alexandria approve this Ele∣ction. Last of all, the Council made a Decree concerning the Celebration of Easter, and ordained that this Feast should be celebrated only on the Sunday. Constantine wrote a general Letter to the whole Church, to acquaint them with the Decisions of this Council, and the Bishops wrote a Letter particularly to the Christians of Egypt, wherein they inform them exactly of what had been ordained about the Cause of the Arians and Meletians, and about the Celebration of Easter.

St. Ambrose indeed seems to intimate that this Council made a Paschal Cycle; but these Words must be so understood as meaning only, That the Determination of the Council gave occasion to make use of Cycles. St. Leo adds in Ep. 64. That the Council gave Order to the Bishop of Alexan∣dria to give notice every Year to the Bishop of Rome of Easter-day, that he might publish it to all the Churches of the World: But if the Council had made this Order, they would have signified it in their Letter to the Egyptians, where they speak favourably of Alexander and his Church.

The Council of Nice did not only determine the Differences which troubled the Church by its De∣cisions, but also made Rules concerning the Discipline of the Church. These Rules, which are call'd Canons, are in number Twenty, and there never were more Genuine k 1.31, tho' some Modern Authors have added many more.

The First Canon excludes from Sacred Orders, those that made themselves Eunuchs, but not those who became so by Sickness, or by the Cruelty of Barbarians.

The 2d. forbids to advance those Persons to the Orders of Priest or Bishop, who were lately baptiz'd, and Ordains that those who shall be convicted of any Crime, shall be depriv'd of their Eccle∣siastical Functions.

The Third forbids Bishops, Priests, Deacons, and other Clergy-men to keep Women in the House with them; yet it excepts Mothers, Sisters, and other Persons, of whom there can be no bad suspicion.

The 4th. Ordains, That a Bishop should be Ordain'd by all the Bishops of the Province, if it can be done; but if it be too difficult to assemble them all, either because of an urgent necessity, or be∣cause of their great distance, he may be Ordain'd by Three Bishops, provided that those who are absent be willing and consent by their Letter that this Ordination should be made; but it adds, That the validity of what is done in the Province depends upon the Metropolitan.

The 5th. Ordains, That none of those who shall be separated from the Church by the Bishops in each Province, can be receiv'd or restor'd to Communion in any other place; and that enquiry be the better made, whether their Bishop has justly excommunicated them, they Ordain, That Two Synods shall be held every Year in every Province, one before Lent and the other in Autumn.

The 6th. Canon is famous for the several Questions it has occasion'd. The most natural Sence that can be given to it, is this:

We Ordain, That the Ancient Custom shall be observ'd, which gives Power to the Bishop of Alexandria, over all the Provinces of Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis, because the Bishop of Rome has the like Jurisdiction over all the Suburbicary Regions (for this Addition must be supplied out of Ruffinus:) We would likewise have the Rights and Privileges of the Church of Antioch, and the other Churches preserved; but these Rights ought not to prejudice those of the Metropolitans. If any one is Ordain'd without the consent of the Metropolitan, the Council declares. That he is no Bishop: But if any one is Canonically chosen by the Suffrage of al∣most all the Bishops of the Province, and if there are but One or Two of a contrary Opinion, the Suffrages of the far greater number ought to carry it for the Ordination of those particular Persons.

This Canon being thus explain'd has no difficulty in it. It does not oppose the Primacy of the Church of Rome, but neither does it * 1.32 establish it. It preserves to Great Sees their ancient Privileges, that is, the Jurisdiction or Authority which they had over many Provinces, which was afterwards call'd the Jurisdiction of the Patriarch or Exarch. In this sence it is, That it compares the Church of Rome to the Church of Alexandria, by considering them all as Patriarchal Churches. It continues also to the Church of Antioch, and all the other Great Churches, whatsoever Rights they could have; but lest their Au∣thority should be prejudicial to the ordinary Metropolitans, who were subject to their Jurisdiction, the Council confirms what had been Ordain'd in the Fourth Canon concerning the Authority of Me∣tropolitans in the Ordination of Bishops. This Explication is easie and natural, and we have given many proofs of it in our Latin Dissertation concerning the ancient Discipline of the Church.

The 7th. is, That since by ancient Tradition the Church of Elias, or of Jerusalem has been ho∣noured, this Prerogative of Honour shall be continued to it, but without prejudice to the Rights of its Metropolis.

The 8th. declares, That the Novatians who return to the Church, may continue in the Clergy after they have receiv'd Imposition of Hands, and made Profession of following the Discipline of the Church.

That if a Novatian Bishop in a City, where there is a Catholick Bishop, return to the Church, he shall not take the place of the Catholick Bishop, but continue in the Presbytery, unless the Catholick Bishop will allow him the Name of a Bishop: But if he will not, this Novatian Bishop shall continue Priest or Suffragan.

The 9th. or 10th. Ordains, That those Priests shall be degraded, who are found either to have Sacri∣ficed, or to have been guilty of other Crimes before their Ordination.

The 11th. imposes a Penance of Ten Years upon those who voluntarily renounce the Christian Religion, without being forced, either by the loss of their Estate, or danger of their Life.

The 12th. imposes Thirteen Years Penance upon those who having shown their Zeal for the Faith did afterwards apostatize to obtain Offices: Nevertheless it permits this Penance to be shorten'd in fa∣vour of those who testify much Grief and Remorse.

The 13th. renews the ancient Law, which Ordains, That dying Persons shall not be deprived of the last and most necessary Viaticum, that is, of Absolution; but upon condition, That if the sick Person recovers his health, he shall be placed only in the Rank of those who are present only at the Prayers of the Church. It leaves it at the discretion of the Bishop to give or to refuse the Communion to dying Persons who desire it.

The 14th. turns back those Catechumens to the place of Hearers, who Apostatized when they were ready to receive Baptism, and enjoins them to continue in that place for Three Years before they can be restor'd to the place wherein they were before.

The 15th. forbids the Translations of Bishops and Priests, and Ordains, That those who shall be Translated, shall return to their First Church.

The 16th. forbids the receiving of Priests, Deacons or Ministers of another Church without the con∣sent of their Bishop.

The 17th. Ordains, That Clergy-men who are Usurers, or who take sordid Gain, shall be deposed.

The 18th. forbids Deacons to give the Eucharist to Priests, because it is against the Canons and contrary to Custom, and they have not the power to Offer nor to Give the Body of Jesus Christ, to those who do offer. It forbids them also to take the Eucharist before the Bishops, and advertises them that they are but inferiour Ministers to Priests; That they ought to receive the Eucharist after them from the hand of a Bishop or a Priest; That 'tis not lawful for them to sit in the place of Priests, and threatens those who do not obey this Rule with the deprivation of their Ministry.

The 19th. Ordains, That the Paulianists shall be re-baptiz'd who return to the Church; and that if there be found any who had the Name of Clergy-men among these Hereticks, who are worthy of Orders, the Bishop shall Ordain them after they have been baptiz'd; but if they be not found worthy of Holy Orders, they shall be deposed. It Ordains the same thing of Deaconesses who are reckoned among the Clergy, tho' they never receiv'd Imposition of Hands, that they shall be placed among the Laity.

The last Canon abolishes the Custom of some Churches wherein they kneeled on Sunday and Whit-sunday, and Ordains for keeping Uniformity, that they shall pray to God standing at this time in all Churches.

We must add to the History of this Council Two remarkable Stories related by Socrates and Sozo∣men, which Socrates says he learn'd from an old Man who assisted at this Council. The First is con∣cerning Acesius a Novatian Bishop, who being asked by the Emperour, whether he approv'd the De∣cision of this Council, answer'd him, That he had receiv'd from his Ancestors the Faith which they had decree'd, and that he always celebrated Easter on the Day which they had appointed. The Empe∣rour having afterwards ask'd him, Why then did he separate from the Communion of the Church? He alledg'd the Indulgence which the Church had given from the time of Decius, and said that those who had faln into Crimes ought never to be receiv'd into the Communion of the Church, and that they ought to expect pardon from God only who only could grant it them. The Emperour hearing this Answer, answer'd him pleasantly, O Acesius, take then a Ladder, and mount up to Heaven alone. The other Story concerns Paphnutius a Bishop in Egypt, who oppos'd the Canon, which was propos'd in the Council for obliging Bishops, Priests and Deacons to observe Celibacy. This good Man said, that tho' he had liv'd all his Life-time in Celibacy, yet he did not think, that this Yoke ought to be impos'd upon the Clergy. Some question the truth of this Story; I believe they do it rather for fear least this Story might prejudice the present Discipline, than from any solid proof they have for it. But these Persons should consider that this Canon is purely a matter of Discipline, and that the Discipline of the Church may change according to the Times, and that 'tis not necessary for the Defence of it, to prove that it was always * 1.33 Uniform in all Places.

What we have hitherto said, shews, That the Authentical Monuments of the Council of Nice are the Confession of Faith, with the Anathematism subjoyned to it, the Letter of the Synod to the Egyptians, the Decree concerning Easter, and the Twenty Canons. I do not think that there ever were any other Acts of this Council l 1.34, since they were unknown to all the ancient Historians. There

is a Latin Letter of this Synod to St. Sylvester extant, but it is supposititious m 1.35, which has no Authority, and which has all the Marks of Forgery, that any writing can have, as well as the pretended Answer of St. Sylvester n 1.36. Neither is that Council genuine, which is said to have been assembled at Rome by St. Sylvester for the confirmation of the Council of Nice. The Canons of this Council are also Forged o 1.37, which contain Rules contrary to the Practice of that time, and which it had been impossible to observe.

Constantine sent a Letter to the Catholick Church which is instead of a Synodical Letter of the Coun∣cil, because by this Letter he publishes what was decided concerning Easter. He says nothing of the cause of the Arians and Meletians, because that particularly concerned the Egyptians to whom the Council gave an account of it. He condemn'd Arius and the Arians: He sent this Heretick into ba∣nishment with Secundus and Theonas, who would not subscribe the Decrees of the Synod; and the Council ending happily in the Month of August in the Year 325, at the beginning of the Second Year of his Reign, he gave the Bishops a noble Entertainment, and sent them home loaded with Presents, after he had exhorted them to Unity.

Of the pretended COUNCIL of Antioch against Eustathius.

IN this Council which was held in 330, Eusebius of Nicomedia, and those of his Faction, depos'd * 1.38 Eustathius, after the manner which we related, when we gave an Account of the Life and Writ∣ings of this Bishop, and they chose in his room Paulinus Bishop of Tyre. 'Tis probable that in this Council they depos'd Asclepas Bishop of Gaza, and condemn'd Eutropius of Adrianople. However this be, this Council has not left any Monument in Writing.

Of the SYNOD of Caesarea.

ST. Athanasius was cited to a Council held at Caesarea in Palaestine, in the Year 334, but he did not * 1.39 appear, and there is nothing known of this Synod.

Of the pretended COUNCIL of Tyre against St. Athanasius.

THE Emperour call'd a Council in the Year 335, in the City of Tyre, to judge the Cause of * 1.40 St. Athanasius. He wrote a Letter to the Bishops of this Synod, wherein he exhorts them to settle Peace and Concord in the Church: He recommended it to them to Judge justly and without Prejudice, and threatned those with banishment who would not appear at the Council. He sent thither Count Dionysius with Guards to hinder any Disorder. This Council consisted of Sixty Ea∣stern Bishops or thereabouts. St. Athanasius came thither with Forty Bishops of Egypt; he was forc'd to appear there as a Criminal. Several Accusations were propos'd which could not be prov'd, and so they insisted upon that of the Chalice, which they alledg'd he had caus'd to be broken in

Maraeotis by his Priest Macarius. The Council sent Deputies to the places to inform themselves of the Truth or Falshood of this Story. But since the Deputies were the greatest Enemies of St. Atha∣nasius, who could not fail of returning their Information to his Disadvantage, he thought himself obliged to retire, and appeal to the Emperour. Some time after, the Deputies returning with an In∣formation, which they had made as they would themselves, the Synod pronounced against him a Sen∣tence of Condemnation and Deposition.

Of the SYNOD of Jerusalem.

THE Synod of Tyre was not yet finished, when the Emperour sent a Letter to the Bishops, * 1.41 wherein he ordered them to come presently to Jerusalem, to make there the Dedication of a Magnificent Church which he had built there. They obeyed the Emperour's Orders, and having perform'd this Ceremony with much Pomp, they made a Synod there, wherein they received Arius, &c. I know very well that Valesius affirms that Arius was then dead, and that the Council received only the Followers of Arius. But St. Athanasius says plainly in his Book of the Synods of Ariminum and Seleucia, That Arius and his Followers were received in this Council. We have in St. Atha∣nasius the Synodical Letter of this Council written to the Egyptians and Alexandrians, wherein they write to them, that they had received Arius and his Party after they were satisfied that they held very Orthodox Doctrines.

Of the COUNCIL of Constantinople against Marcellus of Ancyra.

THE Council of Jerusalem being ended, the Bishops came to Constantinople, where they held * 1.42 also a Synod, wherein they depos'd Marcellus of Ancyra, as convicted by his Writings of re∣newing the Errour of Paulus Samosatenus and Sabellius. He had been already accused of this He∣resy in the Council of Jerusalem, and he had promised that he would retract it, and burn his Book; but refusing to do it at Constantinople, he was there condemned and deposed.

Of the COUNCIL of Constantinople against Paul Bishop of that City.

AFter the Death of Constantine, Paul of Constantinople, who had been banished, returned to Con∣stantinople, * 1.43 according to the permission which the Caesars had given to the exil'd Bishops to re∣turn from their Banishment. But Eusebius of Nicomedia who had a mind to usurp the See of this great City, and the Bishops of his Party, being Enemies to Paul, because he was a Defender of St. A∣thanasius, stirr'd up against him his Priest Macedonius who accused him of leading a Life unbecoming the Priesthood, and they presently assembled a Synod at Constantinople, wherein they deposed him, and chose in his room Eusebius of Nicomedia.

Of the COUNCIL of Alexandria in behalf of St. Athanasius.

ST. Athanasius being returned from Triers, whither Constantine had banished him, re-entred up∣on * 1.44 the possession of the See of Alexandria, and notwithstanding the Condemnation of the Council of Tyre, was acknowledged as their lawful Bishop: yet being oppos'd a-new by the Eu∣sebians under the Empire of Constantius, he caused a Council of a 100 Egyptian Bishops, or there∣abouts, to assemble in the Year 340, who wrote in his Favour to all the Bishops of the World, and cleared him from the Accusations that were laid against him. This Letter is extant in the Second Apology of St. Athanasius.

Of the COUNCIL of Rome, under Pope Julius, in behalf of St. Athanasius.

THE Eusebians desiring to obtain the Favour of Pope Julius, sent Deputies to him about the * 1.45 end of the Year 339, to request of him a Council to judge the cause of St. Athanasius, and de∣clared to him at the same time, That if he pleased they would make him Judge of their Difference. Julius answered them, That it was just a Council should be assembled in what place they pleased; That there they might propose their Accusations against St. Athanasius, and answer what he had to say against them. The Eusebians without waiting for this Synod, where they could not be Judges, any more than St. Athanasius, assembled often times at Antioch, where they ordained one Gregory, to fill the See of Alexandria, and sent him to seize upon it by main Force. St. Athanasius under∣standing what they had done, retired to Rome, where he was kindly received by Pope Julius, who wrote immediately to all the Eastern Bishops, that they should come to Rome on the Day which he appointed, there to appear before the Synod which was to be assembled about the end of the Year 341. The Eusebians never appeared, and detained the Pope's Legates who brought this Letter, till the Month of January in the next Year. However, the Bishops of Italy assembled in a Church of Rome, and examined the Cause of St. Athanasius, and that of Marcellus of Ancyra. All the Accusa∣tions which had been alledged against the former were proposed, and after he had proved them all to be false, he was declared Innocent. Marcellus of Ancyra persuaded the Bishops that his Faith was Orthodox, and declared that his Books were mis-understood, and so was acquitted also. At last, the Council prayed Julius to write to the Bishops of the East; which he did in the Year 342,

after the return of his Legates. We have often already spoken of this Letter of Julius, and there∣fore it is not necessary to say any thing more of it here.

Of the COUNCILS held at Antioch.

THE Eastern Bishops having quitted the Design they had of appearing before a Council of the * 1.46 West, or of taking the Pope for Judge of their differences with St. Athanasius, assembled at Antioch in the beginning of the Year 341, and there held a Synod of Ninety Bishops or thereabouts. The occasion of this Synod was the Celebration of the Dedication of the Church of Antioch. But as it was the Custom of the Bishops when they were assembled to make some Ecclesiastical Rules, so these thought fit to compose New Confessions of Faith, and to make Canons concerning the Disci∣pline of the Church.

In the First of these Confessions of Faith, they declare, That they are not followers of Arius, and that they have no other Faith but what they receiv'd by Tradition; That they restore Arius, because they found that his Doctrines were Orthodox, but that they do not follow him. After this Prote∣station there followed a Confession of Faith, wherein they do not use the Word Consubstantial, but they declare, That they believe in one only Son of God, coexistent with his Father who begot him, by whom all things were made; and in the Holy Spirit. This was the First Confession of Faith that was made af∣ter that of the Council of Nice; and it was quickly follow'd by a Second made by the same Bishops in the same place, wherein they enlarge much more upon the Attributes of Jesus Christ: They say, That he was Born of the Father before all Worlds, That he is God of God, Whole of Whole, a perfect Being, &c. That he is the perfect Image and exact Resemblance of the Divinity, of the Substance, of the Will, the Power and Glory of the Father. They add, That the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are not Three different Names, but Three Subsistences, and that they are one in Will. They pronounce an Anathema against those who say, That there was an Age or a Moment before the Generation of the Word, or who say, That he is a Creature form'd like other Creatures. These Expressions of being one by Will, of being a Creature like others, and some others like them which are in this Confession of Faith, render it very much suspected.

For this reason perhaps it displeased some Bishops of the Synod, which obliged Theophronius Bishop of Tyana to make a Third Confession, which was approv'd by all, wherein they profess to believe in Jesus Christ, The only Son of God, God, the Word, the Power and Wisdom by which all things were created, who was begotten of the Father before all Worlds, perfect God of perfect God, who exists in the Father Hypostatically. This Confession of Faith has nothing that could render it suspected, but only the omission of the Word Consubstantial. These are the Three Confessions of Faith which were made in this Council.

As to what concerns the Discipline of the Church, these Bishops supposing that St. Athanasius had been fairly judged in the Council of Tyre, though they had no more to do but ordain a Bishop in his room. At first they cast their Eyes upon Eusebius of Edessa, a Disciple of Eusebius of Caesarea, and of Patrophilus of Scythopolis: But this Prudent Man refusing it, lest he should be affronted by the People of Alexandria who loved St. Athanasius, they chose Gregory, and pray'd the Emperour to send him with a strong Force to Alexandria to take Possession of that Church.

Afterwards they made 25 Canons concerning the Discipline of the Church, whose Authority has been Disputed upon the account of those who made them. St. Chrysostom and Pope Innocent reject them as being composed by Arians; yet they were inserted into the Code of the Universal Church, and cited in the Council of Chalcedon, where some Canons of this Council of Antioch are quoted; and since that time they have had a place in all the Collections of Ecclesiastical Canons. And in∣deed, they contain the Wisest, and the Justest Rules that ever were observed in the ancient Church; which has made some Authors believe, That part of them at least were made by another Synod; but their Conjectures will not hold, and it is evident, that the 4th. 12th. and 15th. were made by this Synod, since they are the same which St. Chrysostom and Pope Innocent reject, because they were made by Arians. This being evident, say I, 'tis very probable, that all the other Canons were made by the same Council, especially since in all the Collections, they are attributed to one Synod of Antioch only, which was held soon after the Council of Nice.

But we must carefully distingush this Council of Antioch, of which we have just now spoken, that was held in the Year 341, from another Synod made up of a part of the same Bishops, who assem∣bled in the beginning of the Year 342; for this last was held after St. Athanasius was acquitted, when the Bishops of the East sent back the Pope's Legates, after they had been detained till January, in the Year 342. 'Twas in the name of this Synod that they wrote a Letter to Julius, wherein they excuse themselves for not being able to come to the Synod of Rome which he had assembled, both upon the account of the War with the Persians, and because of the shortness of the time between the delivery of Julius's Letter to them, and the Day which he had signified to them for the meeting of the Synod. They took it ill that Julius had written to them all alone, and had address'd his Letter only to Eusebius; but above all they complained that he had taken into his Communion, Athana∣sius and Marcellus, who were condemned and deposed.

Probably 'twas in this last Synod that the Fourth Confession of Faith was compos'd which is pro∣duced by St. Athanasius. It comes very near to that of the Council of Nice, saving only that it omits the Word Consubstantial. They made it, as St. Athanasius observes, to send it into the West to the Emperour Constans.

The 1st. Canon of the Council of Antioch confirms the Decree of the Council of Nice, concerning the Celebration of Easter.

The 2d. condemns those who would never communicate, and who have an aversion to the receiving of the Eucharist, and forbids the holding Communion with those that are excommunicated, under the Penalty of being excommunicated themselves.

The 3d. forbids Clergymen to forsake their Churches to abide in others, and ordains that he who will not return being recall'd by his own Bishop, shall be deposed, and that the Bishop who detains him shall be punish'd by the Synod.

The 4th. ordains, That in case a Bishop being deposed by a Synod, and a Priest or a Deacon being deposed by his Bishop, shall dare to discharge the Functions of their Offices before they be restored, they can never hope to be restor'd in another Synod; That they shall not be permitted to defend them∣selves, and that all those shall be excommunicated who have communicated with them, and knew the Judgment that was given against them.

The 5th. is, That if a Priest or a Deacon despising his Bishop, separate from the Church, and make private Meetings, setting up a New Altar, and will not obey his Bishop, when he shall be admonish'd and call'd back again two or three times, he can no longer hope to continue in his Office, and if he continue to trouble the Church, the Aid of the Secular Arm may be implor'd to chastise this sediti∣ous Person.

The 6th. forbids the receiving of an excommunicated Person until he has been restored to Commu∣nion by his Bishop.

The 7th. ordains, That no Person shall be received into Communion, who has not Letters of Peace, i. e. Letters testifying that he is not separated from the Communion of the Church.

The 8th. declares, That these Letters cannot be given by the Priests who are in the Country Vil∣lages, or at least that they cannot address them but only to their neighbouring Bishops; but that the Suffragans may grant them.

The 9th. ordains, That the Bishops of the Province reverence their Metropolitan, and do nothing of consequence without him, but only take care of the Diocess, to ordain Priests and Deacons, and to regulate the particular Affairs of their Church; but to do nothing more without the Metropolitan, who ought likewise to do no considerable thing without taking the Advice of the Bishops of the Pro∣vince.

The 10th. regulates the Rights of Suffragans. It enjoyns them not to exalt themselves above their Rank; to take care of the Churches, which are subject to them, without meddling with the Affairs of others. It permits them in their own Churches to ordain Readers, Sub-Deacons and Exorcists, but it forbids them to ordain Priests and Deacons, tho' they have even received Imposition of Episcopal Hands, that is, tho' they have been ordained Bishops. Lastly, it ordains, That the Suffragan should be ordained by the Bishop of the City.

The 11th. ordains, That in case a Bishop, or a Priest, or another Clergyman address to the Empe∣rour without the Consent of the Bishops of the Province, and chiefly of the Metropolitan, he ought to be excommunicated and deposed; but if he has any Affairs which oblige him to wait upon the Emperour, he may do it with the Consent of the Metropolitan and the Bishops of the Province, which shall be express'd in the Letters which they give him.

The 12th. forbids Clergy-men who have been deposed by their Bishop to address themselves to the Emperour, to obtain Restitution; and takes from those who shall do it all hopes of being restored.

The 13th. forbids Bishops to pass from one Province to another to ordain there, unless they be called by the Metropolitan of the Province, and nulls every thing which shall be done by one Bishop of a Province.

The 14th. says, That in case the Bishops of one Province cannot agree about judging of a Bishop, the Metropolitan may call the Bishops of the neighbouring Province, to judge and decide this Con∣troversy.

But it is ordained in the 15th. That if a Bishop is condemned unanimously by all the Bishops of the Province, he cannot be judg'd a-new, and that the Sentence of the Synod of the Province ought to remain firm.

The 16th. declares, That if a Bishop who has no Bishoprick; invade a vacant Church, without the Authority of a Synod, he ought to be driven away from it, tho' the People of the Church whereof he is Bishop should choose him. It adds, That a Synod cannot be compleat and lawful without the presence of the Metropolitan.

The 17th. declares, That if any being ordained Bishop, refuse to accept of the Bishoprick, he is to continue excommunicated until such time as he accepts it, or that the Synod of the Province has otherwise determined about it: But if it be none of his Fault, that he does not go to his Church, but because the People of the Church will not receive him, it is ordained in the 18th. Canon, that he shall have the Honour and Place of a Bishop, upon condition that he do not any wise trouble the Church wherein he shall continue.

The 19th. forbids the Ordination of a Bishop without a Synod and without the presence of the Metropolitan. It adds, That 'tis convenient that all the Bishops of the Province should be present at this Synod with him; but if this cannot be done, yet they must be summon'd to it, and several of them must give their Suffrages, either in the Synod, or by Letters: That if the Ordination be made otherwise, it shall not be good; but if some particular Persons out of a Spirit of Contradi∣ction contest it after it is thus made, the Suffrages of the major Part should carry it.

The 20th. ordains, That every Year two Synods shall be held in a Province; viz. the First, the

Third Week 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Easter, and the Second in the Month of July, that so Priests, Deacons, and in short, all those who pretend that their Bishop has done them any Injury, may have recourse to the Synod. It forbids also to keep these Synods without the Metropolitans.

The 21st. forbids the Translations of Bishops.

The 22d. forbids a Bishop to meddle within the Diocess of another, and to make any Ordina∣tion there.

The 23d. forbid•• a Bishop to ••••oain his Successor.

The 24th. provides for the preservation of the Church-Lands: It gives the management of them to the Bishops; but it ordains that the Priests shall take cognizance of the Lands of the Church, lest after the Death of the Bishop his Heirs seize upon them.

The Last regulates the uses to which the Bishop should apply the Revenue of the Church: It ordains, That he shall dispose of them, for the good of the Poor and of Strangers; and that he shall be content with necessaries, according to the command of the Apostle St. Paul; That he shall not keep the remainder to himself; That he shall not give it to his Brethren or to his Children, but that he shall distribute it according to the Advice of the Priests and Deacons; That if he does not do it, he shall be accountable to the Synod of the Province; And Lastly, That if the Priests and the Bishop be accused of conspiring together, to appropriate to themselves the Ecclesiastical Revenues, the Synod shall examine this Accusation, and shall punish them if it be found true.

Of the COUNCIL of Antioch.

THE Eusebians assembled also at Antioch about the end of the Year 345, or the beginning of * 1.47 the next Year, and there made a large Confession of Faith, which they sent into the West, by Eudoxus, Martyrius, and Macedonius. 'Tis quoted as well as the others by St. Athanasius. There they make profession of believing in Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, begotten of his Father before all Worlds, God of God, Light of Light; and they condemn those that say, That he is not God, or that he was made of nothing, and those that say, There are Three Gods, and those that confound the Divine Persons. This Confession is Catholick, tho' the Term Consubstantial is not found in it.

Of the COUNCIL of Milan.

THE Bishops of the West being assembled at this Council to find out some means of determining the Differences of the Bishops which troubled the Peace of the Church, the Deputies of the * 1.48 Eastern Bishops came thither, and propos'd that large Confession of Faith last mentioned to them: The Western Bishops for their part declar'd, That the Nicene Creed must be approved, and Arius condemned. This Proposition provoked the Deputies of the Bishops of the East who retired in great anger. Ursacius and Valens were received into Communion in this Council, after they had presented a Manifesto, wherein they condemn the Heresies of Arius and Photinus. The Error of the latter was also condemn'd in this Synod. This Council was held in the Year 346. For, First, It was as∣sembled when the Deputies of the Council of Antioch came into the West, and brought with them their long Confession of Faith; and St. Athanasius says, That they did this Three Years after the First Deputation which they made about the end of the Year 342. Secondly, Liberius says in his Letter to Constantius compos'd in the Year 354, That it was then Eight Years since the Legates who came from the East, withdrew from the Council of Milan in great discontent. Lastly, St. Athanasius says, that Constantius commanded him to appear at Milan, in the Fourth Year of his Abode in the West; and he came in 341, and therefore this Synod was held about the end of the Year 345, or the beginning of the Year 346.

Of the COUNCIL of Cologne against Euphratas.

THere is commonly placed in the Year 346, a Synod which is thought to have been held at Co∣logne, * 1.49 and wherein 'tis said that Euphratas Bishop of this City was deposed for denying the Di∣vinity of Jesus Christ. The Acts of this Council are extant in the Second Tome of the Councils p. 615. But I find there is great probability that these Acts were forg'd, and that this History is false: For this Euphratas who is said to have been depos'd in this Synod in the Year 346, i. e. in the next Year after the Consulship of Amantius and Albinus, was present the Year after at the Council of Sardica as a Catholick Bishop, and was also one of the Deputies whom the Council sent into the East, as appears by the Testimonies of St. Athanasius and Theodoret. Is it possible that a Bishop, who was a little before convicted of denying the Divinity of the Son, and then depos'd, should be pre∣sent at the Council of Sardica among the Catholick Bishops, and should be chosen for a Deputy by the whole Council? Some say, that this Council was held alter that of Sardica; but this Hypothesis which is contrary to the Date of the Acts, may also be easily destroy'd: For Maximinus of Triers who is thought to have presided at this Council, as the Acts testify, died soon after the Council of Sardica, since it is certain by the Testimony of St. Athanasius, in his Epistle to those that lead a Mo∣nastick Life, That Paulinus, the Successor of Maximinus, was Bishop of Triers when Ursacius and Valens retracted, i. e. in the Year 349. But from the Year 347 to 349, Euphratas was always out of France, and consequently it is impossible that 〈◊〉〈◊〉 should be Deposed by Maximinus of Triers.

There is also another Argument which prvoes the Acts of the Council of Cologne to be forg'd. Ser∣vatus Bishop of Tongres, says, that he reprov'd Euphratas in the presence of St. Athanasius. Now

this Bishop could not have seen St. Athanasius, but upon Two Occasions. First, when this Saint was at Triers; and Secondly, when Servatus was sent into the East by Magnentius: But he could not reprove Euphratas in the presence of St. Athanasius neither when this Father was at Triers, since Eu∣phratas could not be accus'd of this Error before the Council of Sardica, nor when he was sent Depu∣ty into the East; for then Maximinus of Triers, who is said to have presided at the Council of Cologne, was dead, as we have just now shown.

The Subscriptions of these Acts do also plainly discover their Forgery: For there you may read the Names of Desiderius of Langres, and of Simplicianus of Autun, who liv'd in the Fifth Age of the Church; there is also the Name of Discolus Bishop of Rheims, who is not to be found in the Cata∣logue of the Bishops of that Church. Lastly Severinus who is said to have been Ordain'd in the room of Euphratas, was still alive in the Year 402, according to the Testimony of Sulpitius Severus. 'Tis true the Names of Desiderius and Discolus are amongst the Names of the Bishops of France, in the Subscriptions of the Letter of the Council of Sardica; but 'tis probable that he that forged these Acts, took from thence these Names, and added to them the Names of the Bishop-ricks. However it be, these Acts were unknown to all the ancient Historians, who make no mention of this History, nor of the Council of Cologne. The First who cited them is the Author of the Acts of Servatus of Tongres, which the Learned now own to be supposititious. After him Ser∣vatus Lupus mentions them in the Life of Maximinus: Hogerius Abbot of Lobbes, and some Mo∣dern Authors mention them; but their Authority is of little weight in so ancient a Matter as this.

Of the COUNCIL of Sardica.

THE Emperours Constantius and Constans desiring to restore Peace to the Church, call'd a Synod * 1.50 of the Eastern and Western Bishops at Sardica in the Year 347 a 1.51 Thither came 100 Bishops from the West, and 73 Bishops from the East b 1.52 But those of the East having declared to those of the West, that they would not be present at the Council, unless St. Athanasius, Marcellus and the other Bishops that were condemned, were excluded from Ecclesiastical Communion, and the We∣stern Bishops refusing to accept of this Condition, the Council was divided and the Eastern Bishops withdrew. Those of the West, of whom Hosius was the Head and President, c 1.53 did notwithstanding hold a Synod in their absence, to treat of the Faith, and of the Accusations charg'd upon St. Athana∣sius and the other Catholick Bishops, and to make Canons concerning the Discipline of the Church. In Matters of Faith, they all Agreed that they must not make any new Creed, but must hold to that of the Council of Nice: Yet some particular Persons would have made a new Creed, in imitation of the Bishops of the East, but all the Council disapproved their Design. The Creed then drawn up is preserved by Theodoret Ch. 8. of the 2d. B. of his History. Afterwards the Council took into their consideration the personal Accusations against St. Athanasius and Marcellus of Ancyra. The First justified himself and was acquitted; the Second having alledged that Eusebius and his Adversaries took for Affirmations what he propos'd as Objections, was also restor'd. Asclepas Bishop of Gaza was restor'd; Theodorus of Heraclea, Narcissus of Neronius, Stephen of Antioch, George of Laodicea, Menophantus of Ephesus, Ursacius of Singidunum, Valens of Mursa, and Patrophilus of Scythopolis, were Excommunicated and Deposed.

Lastly, the Council produced Twenty Canons and wrote Three Letters. The First which was ad∣dress'd to all the Bishops, is to the Church of Alexandria by St. Athanasius, and by St. Hilary in his Fragments; the Second is to Julius which is in St. Hilary in the same place, and the Third produced by St. Athanasius. There was also a long Letter to the Emperours, which was in St. Hilary's Book, but is not now in his Fragments, nor any where else.

On the other side the Eastern Bishops who withdrew from Sardica, assembled at Philippopolis, and wrote a Letter from thence, which they dated from Sardica, addressed to all the Bishops of the World. There they cry out upon St. Athanasius, Marcellus of Ancyra and Asclepas, and make them

pass for wicked Rogues. They declare, That they do not join with the Bishops of the West, be∣cause they had receiv'd into their Communion those Bishops who were deposed in the East, and upon the account of this pretended violation of their Authority they excommunicate Hosius, Pro∣togenes, Gaudentius, Maximinus and Julius. They complain that the whole World was turn'd up∣side down, and the whole Church disturbed for the sake of One or Two wicked Fellows. They ac∣cuse the Bishops of the West of Arrogance, and reprove them for endeavouring to establish a new Law, to give themselves the liberty of examining a new what had been determined in the East. They observe that the ancient Discipline of the Church is contrary to this Practice, and that the Judgments given in the East ought to be confirm'd in the West, as those of the West were received in the East. They prove this Rule by several Examples. Lastly, they add to this Letter a Confes∣sion of Faith, wherein they make profession of Believing in the Son of God begotten of the Father be∣fore all Worlds, God of God, Light of Light, who Created all things; and they condemn those who say. That the Son was made of nothing, or that he is of another Substance than the Divine Substance, and that he is not of God, or that there was a time when he was not the Son of God; as also they ana∣thematize those who say, That there are Three Gods, or that Jesus Christ is not God; or that there is not one Christ•• only the Son of God, or that he is the same Person with the Father or the Holy Spirit. This Letter which is preserved in the Fragments of St. Hilary is address'd to Gregory of Alexandria, to Amphion of Nicomedia, and to several other Bishops, and among the rest to Donatus of Carthage. For which Reason the Donatists urge it in the Conference of Carthage, and the Catholick Bishops being ignorant of this History, say, that the Council of Sardica was made up of Arian Bishops. Some say, That Paul of Constantinople was restor'd in the Council of Sardica, others who follow Epiphanius, say, That Photinus was condemned there. They are both mistaken; for Paul was dead, and Photinus was not condemned in this Synod.

I have only now to give an Abridgment of the subject Matter of the Canons of the Council of Sar∣dica. These Canons were not compos'd as those of other Councils in the form of Laws; but they are propositions made by Hosius and some other Bishops, which are approved by all the Synod.

In the 1st. Hosius says, That they ought wholly to abolish a wicked Custom and pernicious Abuse, by hindering Bishops to pass from one See to another. And having declared that Avarice and Ambi∣tion are the only causes of these Translations, because there is no Example of a Bishop who ever quit∣ted a great Bishoprick to take a little one. He proposes for a severe Punishment of this Fault, that those who are guilty of it shall be excluded from Lay-Communion. And all the Fathers of the Council answered, We agree to it.

In the 2d. Canon, Hosius adds, That the same Sentence ought to be pronounced against those who excuse themselves, because they were desired by the Faithful of their Second Church; and the Synod ordains that it shall be so.

The three following Canons concern Ecclesiastical Decisions. It had been ordained in the Council of Antioch, That the Decision of the Council of the Province could not be invalidated, and that if the Bishops of the Province could not agree, they should call in those of the neighbouring Province.

The Council of Sardica falls foul upon these Two Decisions: For in the Third Canon Hosius pro∣poses, First, That it should be forbidden to appeal to Judges of a neighbouring Province; and Se∣condly, he says, That for the Honour of the Memory of St. Peter, he judg'd it convenient, with the leave of the Council, to Ordain; That if a Bishop condemned in his own Country thought himself innocent, those who had judged him should write of it to the Bishop of Rome, to enquire whether the Cause of the Bishop accused should be examined a-new: That if he, and the Judges whom he should name were of this Opinion, they must proceed to a-new Decision upon the place; but if he did not think fit that the Cause should be examined a-new, then the Sentence already past must stand good.

Gaudentius adds in the Fourth Canon, That a Bishop deposed by the Synod of the Province, who desires this new Decision, must not be expell'd his See, till the Bishop of Rome has determined, whether the Cause ought to be examined a-new.

Lastly, In the 5th. Canon, according to the Greek, and the 7th. according to the Edition of Dio∣nysius Exiguus, Hosius says, That when the Bishop of Rome thinks fit that the Cause of a Bishop should be examined a Second time, he ought to write to the Bishops next adjoyning to his Pro∣vince, That they examine the whole Matter with Care and Exactness; That he must also be im∣powered to send Legates in his own Name to this New Synod, unless he think it more convenient to leave the judging of the Cause to the neighbouring Bishops of the Province only, without send∣ing thither his Legates. The Bishops of the Council approve these Propositions of Hosius and Gau∣dentius. These three Canons have occasioned great Disputes, which would quickly vanish, if Men would confine themselves to the Words of the Council of Sardica, which sufficiently discover; First, That the Discipline which these Fathers establish is New; Secondly, That they do not give the Bi∣shop of Rome power to judge the Cause of a Bishop in his own Tribunal at Rome; but they only give him Authority to enquire whether it were well or ill determined; and in case he find that it was determined wrong to Order a New Decision of it in the Country, and by the neighbouring Bi∣shops of the Province where it was determined, whither he might send Legates in his own Name to be present, if he thought it convenient. This is the Natural Sence of the three Canons of this Council, which I have explained more at large in my Second Dissertation of the Discipline of the Church.

The 5th. Canon according to the Edition of Dionysius Exiguus declares, That if there remains but one Bishop in a Province, and he will not ordain other Bishops, the Bishops ought to come to him and joyn with him in ordaining; but if he persist in his unwillingness and will not meet

them for ordaining Bishops, the neighbouring Bishops alone may then ordain them without his Con∣sent. This is the Proposition of Hosius, to which the Council agreed.

The 6th. is, That a Bishop ought not to be ordained in a Borrough or little City, where a Priest is sufficient, lest the Dignity of a Bishop be lessened.

The following Canons are about the Journeys of Bishops to Court. Hosius for hindering them to go thither continually, and importune the Emperour by their frequent Petitions, thought fit to ordain,

First, That none of the Bishops shall go to Court, unless he be required by the Emperour's Letters.

Secondly, That those who shall have Requests or Petitions to make for the Poor of their Churches, shall only send thither a Deacon.

Thirdly, That this Deacon, before he goes to Court shall address himself to his Metropolitan, to whom he shall make known the occasion of his Petitions, and of whom he shall obtain Letters of Re∣quest and Recommendation.

Fourthly, That those who shall go to Rome, shall address themselves to the Bishop of that City, who having examined their Petitions, shall write of them to Court if he finds them Just.

Fifthly, Gaudentius adds, That for putting these Rules in Execution, the Bishops which lie upon the Road, shall ask the Bishops whom they shall see going to Court, and if they find that they have not observed the Canons above-mentioned, they shall not receive them into their Communion. But because these Rules were New, Hosius moderates this Penalty, and says, That they must first make them known to these Bishops, and persuade them to send a Deacon to Court from the place where they shall be, and then return to their own Diocess. These Propositions are approved by the Council, and contained in the Canons 8, 9, 10, 11, 12.

In the 13th. Hosius says, That he thought it necessary to ordain, That Bishopricks shall only be given to those who have discharged the Offices of Reader and Deacon, or Priest, for a considerable time. The Bishops of the Council approve this Proposition.

In the 14th. Hosius says, That it ought to be ordained, that a Bishop should not continue longer than three Weeks, in the Diocess of another, and out of his own. All the Bishops are of this Opi∣nion: But Hosius moderates this Law in the following Canon, in favour of those who have an Estate out of their Diocess, and who are obliged to continue there more than three Weeks for their Affairs, but he would have them forbidden after this time is spent, to go to the great Church of the City, and orders them to be present only at the Offering of a Priest.

In the 16th. Hosius proposes the renewing of that Law, which forbids a Bishop to give the Commu∣nion to him who is excommunicated by his own Bishop: And the Bishops of the Council say, That this Rule will preserve Peace and Concord.

The 17th. allows Priests and Deacons who are condemned by their own Bishop to appeal to the Judgment of the Bishops of the Province.

In the 18th. the Bishop Januarius desires that a Bishop may be forbidden to sollicite the Clergy of another Bishop, that he may ordain them in his own Diocess. The Council answers, That these Contests occasion Discord among Bishops, and is of Opinion, that it ought not to be done.

Hosius adds in the 19th. Canon, That the Ordination of a Clergy-man of another Diocess ought to be void, and that the Bishop who shall do it, ought to be punished.

In the 20th. the Bishop Aëtius having remonstrated that many Priests and Deacons, Strangers, con∣tinued a long time at Thessalonica, the Synod ordains, That the Rules made with respect to Bishops may oblige these Persons.

The 21st. Canon according to the Edition of Dionysius Exiguus which we have followed, declares, That according to the Remonstrance of the Bishop Olympus, the Council is of Opinion, that a Bi∣shop forc'd away from his own Diocess for the Defence of the Discipline of the Church, or of the Faith and Truth, may continue in the Bishoprick of another, till he can return to his own, for it would be great Inhumanity not to receive him who is persecuted, and that on the contrary, much Civility and Kindness ought to be shewn to him.

There are in the Greek two other Canons which concern a particular Business. The Bishop Gau∣dentius says to the Bishop Aëtius, That since he had had no trouble in his Diocess from the time that he was Bishop of it, he thought that he ought to receive those who were ordained by Musaeus and Eutychianus. Hosius judged that he ought not to admit those who being ordained would not con∣tinue in the Churches to which they are nam'd. He adds, That Eutychianus and Musaeus ought not to be look'd upon as Bishops, but if they desir'd Lay-Communion, it should not be refus'd them.

These Canons end with these Words in the Edition of Dionysius Exiguus, The whole Council hath said; The Catholick Church spread over all the Earth, shall observe what has been now ordain'd.

However, the Canons of the Council of Sardica were never received by the Catholick Church, as general Laws. They were never put into the Code of the Canons of the Universal Church, approv'd by the Council of Chalcedon. The East never received them, neither would the Bishops of Africa own them. The Popes only used them, and cited them under the Name of the Council of Nice, to give them the greater Weight and Authority.

Of the First COUNCIL of Sirmium.

THE First Council of Sirmium was made up of Western Bishops; it was held in the Year 349, * 1.54 Two Years after that of Milan. Photinus who had been already excommunicated, was there condemned, but he could not be forced away from his See, and therefore the Western Bishops only

gave notice to the Eastern of the Judgment they had given against this Heretick. This is related in the Fragments of St. Hilary.

Of the Second COUNCIL of Sirmium.

THE Second Council of Sirmium was made up of Eastern Bishops assembled by the Emperour Con∣stantius * 1.55 in the Year 351. Basil of Ancyra entred the Lists there against Photinus, and convicted him of Heresy. He was afterwards Deposed by the Bishops, and sent into banishment by the Authority of the Emperour. In this Council was made the First Creed of Sirmium wherein the Bishops make profes∣sion of believing in Jesus Christ the only Son of God, born of his Father before all Worlds, God of God, Light of Light, by Whom all Things were made. There they anathematize those that said, He was crea∣ted of nothing, or of another Substance, or that he was not of God, or that he was made in Time; Those that said there are Two Gods, or those who on the contrary averr'd, That the Father, or at least one part of him, was born of Mary, and also those who made no distinction of the Three Divine Persons, or who said, That the Divinity was changed into Flesh, and that it was subject to Sufferings and Changes. This is the Sum of that long Creed quoted in Greek by St. Athanasius, and in Latin by St. Hilary, who has considered and explained it as a very Orthodox Confession of Faith.

Of the COUNCIL of Arles.

COnstantius had a long time desired to get Athanasius condemned by the Western Bishops. To * 1.56 compass this Design, he assembled a Synod in the Year 353, in the City of Arles. The Pope sent for Legates Vincentius of Capua, and another Bishop of Campania called Marcellus; and order∣ed them to desire the Meeting of a Council in the City of Aquileia. These Legates being arrived at the Council of Arles, desired that they would begin with handling the Doctrine, and with condemn∣ing the Error of Arius, before they spoke of the Cause of St. Athanasius: But Ursacius and Valens who had no other Design but to procure the Condemnation of St. Athanasius, would not admit this Proposition; and forc'd the Bishops of the Council, and even the Pope's Legates to subscribe the con∣demnation of this Saint. There was none but only Paulinus Bishop of Triers that continued stedfast, and for this Reason he was banished immediately.

Of the COUNCIL of Milan.

LIberius being informed of the Fall of his Legates, sendeth Lucifer Bishop of Calaris, to wait up∣on * 1.57 the Emperour, and desire of him a new Synod. The Emperour granted him one, and caus'd it to meet at Milan in the Year 355: But it did not answer the Pope's Expectation. The Emperour caus'd the Bishops of the East and the West to be Summoned to it; but yet it was compos'd only of the Western Bishops. There came almost 300 to it. Thither they brought Eusebius of Verceilles, and Lucifer of Calaris, who was the Pope's Legate, together with Pancratius the Priest, and Hilary the Deacon. These were invited to the Synod, and were urged to subscribe the Condemnation of St. A∣thanasius: They answer'd, That they must First handle Matters of Faith; That they saw in the As∣sembly some Hereticks, or such as were suspected of Heresy; That in the First place they must make profession of the Faith contain'd in the Nicene Creed. Dionysius of Milan took Pen and Paper, to write down and sign the Creed: But presently Ursacius and Valens took them by force out of his hands. Thereupon there arose a great Tumult, the People were put in a Commotion, and the Bishops withdrew to the Palace, where they were press'd to sign a Letter written in the Emperour's Name against St. Athanasius. There were but few Bishops who could resist the Emperour's Sollicita∣tions, and those who were so stedfast as to do it, viz. Eusebius of Verceilles, Dionysius of Milan, and some others, were sent into banishment. Baluzius in his new Collection of Councils, has cau∣sed the New Acts of this Council to be printed, taken out of the Life of Eusebius of Verceilles, published by Ughellus in the First Tome of his Italia Sacra; but there is no probability that they are Authentical.

Of the COUNCIL of Biterrae, or Beziers.

THE French Church had not yet been toss'd with the Storms which troubled the Peace of all * 1.58 the Churches in the World. Saturninus Bishop of Arles a factious Man, was the First who brought thither the fire of Division. He assembled in the Year 356, a Council at Beziers, and us'd all his Endeavours to make it receive the followers of Arius; but St. Hilary oppos'd him stoutly, and having desired them to treat of Doctrinal Matters offered to convict Ursacius, Valens and Saturninus of Heresy. Instead of hearkning to him they wrote to Court against him, and he was sent into ba∣nishment together with Rhodanius Bishop of Tholouse. After he was forced away, the Bishops of this Council being devoted to the Interests of Saturninus, did whatever he desired; but the other Bishops of France would never communicate with him, nor with Ursacius and Valens, and would not suffer other Bishops to be Ordain'd in the room of those that were banish'd.

Of the Third COUNCIL of Sirmium.

THE Second Creed of Sirmium was made in that City in the Year 357, by Potamius Bishop of Lisbon a City of Spain, in the Presence of Valens, Ursacius, Germinius, and some other Bishops. * 1.59 This Creed is Arian. In it they reject the Word Consubstantial, and they declare, That the Father is greater than the Son, and that the Son had a beginning.

Of the COUNCIL of Antioch.

THE Eastern Arians seeing that those of the West had plainly made Profession of their Error, * 1.60 did also publickly declare themselves in a Council assembled at Antioch in the Year 357. Eudox∣ius Bishop of that City, a Patron of Aëtiús, Acacius Bishop of Caesarea in Palaestine, Uranius Bishop of Tyre, and some others, did there condemn the Words Consubstantial, and like in Substance, and wrote to Ursacius, Valens and Germinius, to thank them, because by their means the Bishops of the West had embraced their Doctrine.

Of the COUNCIL of Ancyra.

THE greatest part of the Eastern Bishops opposed this Design of Eudoxius, and could not en∣dure * 1.61 that he should make so publick a Profession of the Impious Doctrine of Aëtius. George Bishop of Laodicea wrote a Circular Letter upon this Subject, wherein he exhorted his Brethren to join together for defending the Faith of the Church. Basil of Ancyra presented this Letter to many Bishops who were assembled in his City for Dedicating his Church, about the Feast of Easter in the Year 358. These Bishops wrote a Synodical Epistle related by St. Epiphanius, wherein they First confirm'd the Creeds of the Eastern Bishops made at Antioch, at Sardica, and at Sirmium, and then condemned the Heresy of Aëtius, and professed to believe the Son of God to be like his Father. There follow after their Creed 18 Anathematisms, wherein they condemn these following Impious Dogmes, viz. That the Son of God is not like to his Father, That he is unlike in Substance, That he is a Creature, That he is another God than God the Father, &c. At the end of these Anathema∣tisms there is one against those who say, That the Father and the Son are Consubstantial. St. Hilary who explains the others, makes no mention of this last, because the Deputies of this Synod durst not bring it to Sirmium.

Of the Fourth COUNCIL of Sirmium.

SOON after the Council of Ancyra, there was a Council held at Sirmium, wherein the Bishops * 1.62 of Italy and the West were present. Therein was made a Collection of the Creeds of Antioch, of the First of Sirmium, of that of Sardica, and of that of Ancyra, which Eustathius Bishop of Se∣bastea, and Eleusius Bishop of Cyzicum, presented to be sign'd by all the Bishops, who made no Scruple to do it.

Of the Fifth COUNCIL of Sirmium.

COnstantius having appointed Two great Synods, one in the East at Seleucia, and the other in the * 1.63 West at Ariminum, some Eastern Bishops before they went to Seleucia, met together at Sir∣mium, where they made a new Confession of Faith, which was dictated by Marcus of Arethusa, after a long Conference with the other Bishops, and was sign'd by those that were present. Therein they make Profession of believing the Son of God to be in all things like to his Father; but they reject the name of Substance, as a Term that ought not to be us'd in speaking of the Trinity, because it is not found in Scripture, and is not intelligible by the People. Nevertheless Basil of Ancyra added in his Subscription, That the Son of God was in all things like to his Father, not only by the consent of Will, but also in Substance and Essence. This Creed has the Names of the Consuls at the beginning, which displeased many.

Of the COUNCIL of Ariminum.

WHile these things were a-doing in the East, the Western Bishops assembled from all Parts * 1.64 to Ariminum. The Emperour had sent his Letters Mandatory for them, and provided for them publick Carriage, and Money for performing their Journey; but the Bishops of France and Britain thought it below them to accept of these Offers, and chose rather to travel at their own Ex∣pence. There came about 400 to the Synod, which began about the Month of July in the Year 359. Ur∣sacius and Valens proposed there the Creed which was made a little before at Sirmium; but the Council confin'd themselves to that of Nice, and would not receive any other. This it declared by a solemn Decree which was sign'd by all the Bishops, and to it they subjoined Anathematisms against the Error of Arius, which are related at the end of St. Hilary's Fragments. Ursacius, Valens, Germinius and De∣mophilus refusing to acquiesce in this Definition, were condemn'd by the unanimous consent of all the Bishops. Matters being thus determined in the Council to the advantage of the Faith of the Church, the Bishops sent Deputies to Constantius with a Letter, wherein they give him an account of

what they had done: But on the other side Ursacius, Valens and their followers, sent also Deputies to the Emperour, and having much greater Interest in the Emperour, they prepossess'd him, and hin∣dred him from giving audience to the Deputies of the Synod. And so he did nothing but write back to them, that he had not time to hear the Twenty Deputies which the Synod had sent to him, be∣cause he was obliged to go against the Pers•…•…s; and that he had given them Order to wait till his Re∣turn to Adrianople, because he would examine Matters of Religion with a Mind calm and disengaged from all other Business. The Council answer'd him, That they would never depart from what they had done, and they earnestly prayed him to permit the Bishops to return to their Churches before the rigour of the Winter. In the mean time, the Deputies of the Council assembled at Nice, a City of Thrace, and declared all that was done at Ariminum, null and void. Ursacius, Valens, and Germinius, approved a Confession perfectly like that of Sirmium, wherein they declare▪ That the Son of God is like his Father in all things, and reject the Terms of Substance and Hypostasis▪ Urs••cius and Valens recited this Confession o•• Faith at Ariminum, and the Emperour sent his Commands to the Gover∣nour, that he should not suffer any Bishop to go away till he had Sign'd it, and gave Order to lend those into banishment who should continue Obstinate, provided they were no more than Fifteen. At first they all testified much Constancy, but by little and little they suffer'd themselves to be overcome through Emulation, and the greatest part of them Sign'd the Confession of Faith: There were but Twenty that held out to the last▪ but in the end they were overcome also, and Sign'd as well as the others. Nevertheless some of them, as Phegadius Bishop of Tongres, added Professions of Faith to their Sub∣scriptions, wherein they expresly condemn the Heresy of Arius. When all the Bishops had Sign'd the Confession of Faith, they wrote to the Emperour, that they had fully satisfied his Commands, by agreeing with those of the East, and rejecting the Word, Substance; and therefore they prayed him earnestly to give Order to the Governour to suffer them to go to their Churches. The Emperour gave them leave: And thus ended this Council, whose beginning was Glorious, and end Deplorable.

Of the COUNCIL of Seleucia.

WHile these things were doing in the West, the Eastern Bishops assembled at Seleucia, and * 1.65 there raised Disputes which they maintained with extream Heats. There came to this Synod 160 Bishops of two different Parties altogether opposite to one another. One of them were pure Arians who maintained, That the Son of God was not at all like in Substance to his Father. There were about 40 of this Party. The others call'd Semi-Arians, made profession of believing the Son of God to be like in Substance, and rejected the Errours of Arius and A••tius; those of this Party were 105: The other Bishops were probably Catholicks, Defenders of the Consubstantiality. There was an Officer from the Emperour's Court, call'd Leonas, present at the Council for hindering any Tumult. The First Assembly was held on the 23d. of September in the Year 359. Leonas required the Bishops to propose what they were to treat o••. The Semi-Arians, whereof the chief were George of Laodicea, Eleusius of Cyzicum, Sophronius of Pompeiopolis, Silvanus of Tarsus, Macedonius of Constantinople, Basil of Ancyra, Eustathius of Sebastea, and St. Cyril of Jerusalem, maintain'd, That Personal Causes should be first examin'd before they handled Matters of Faith. On the contrary, the Arians, whereof the Heads were Acacius of Caesarea, George of Alexandria, Uranius of Tyre, E••∣doxius of Antioch, maintain'd, That they should first begin with Matters of Faith; and they carried it against the others. They propos'd that the Nicene Creed should be rejected, and a New one should be made: But the Bishops of the other Party said, That they received the Council of Nice, and found nothing to be blam'd in it, but only the Word Consubstantial. Hereupon there arose a great Dispute which lasted till Night. To put an end to it, Sylvanus of Tarsus said with a loud Voice, That it was needless to make a New Creed, that they had nothing to do, but Sign that which was made at Antioch, by the Synod held there for the Dedication of the Church. The Acacians seeing that this Proposition was approv'd, withdrew, and the next Day the other Bishops being shut up in the Church, caused the Creed of Antioch to be Signed by all the Bishops. On the Third Day, Leonas re-assembled the Bishops of both Parties. The Acacians desired that the Bishops who were divided from them and depos'd, should withdraw; they complained that they were not suffer'd to speak freely in the First Assembly; and they propos'd a Confession of Faith wherein they declare, That they did not refuse to approve the Creed made at Antioch, but that they were obliged to reject more ex∣presly the Terms, Consubstantial and like in Substance, which troubled the Church; That they did also condemn those who said that the Son of God was not like the Father, and that they made Pro∣fession of believing with the Apostl•• that he was the Image and Resemblance of the Father. They add, That the Creed of Sirmium was perfectly like their's. This Confession of Faith is related by St. Epiphanius with the Subscriptions of 39 Bishops of this Party. Sr. Hilary observes, That the greatest Part of those who Signed it being Anomaeans, were forc'd to explain the Profession which they then made, by saying, That the Son was like his Father as he was his Father, but he was not like him as he was God. The Fourth Meeting was spent in Disputes which came to no end. Where∣fore Leonas seeing that there was no means left to reconcile them, declared that he would put an end to the Council, and that he would not be present the next Day at the Assembly of the Bishops. The Acacians took occasion from thence to appear no more. The other Bishops, after a Citation of them, depos'd Acacius, George of Alexandria, Uranius of Tyre, and Six other Bishops of their Party, and excommunicated Nine of them. They restor'd Cyril of Jerusalem, and ordained one named Anianus Bishop of An••ioch, in the room of Eudoxius; but this Anianus was immediately sent i••to banishment.

The Success of what was done both by the one and the other Party in this Council, depended upon the Will of the Emperour; the business was; who should first engage him. The Deputies of the Aca∣cians came first to Constantinople; and they were quickly followed thither by those of the Semi-Arians, whereof the chief were Eustathius of Sebastea, Basil of Ancyra, Sylvanus of Tarsus, and Eleu∣sius of Cyzicum; they were assisted by St. Basil who was as yet but a Deacon. The Emperour would have the Cause of the Faith discuss'd in his own presence. 'Tis said that Aëtius entred upon a Conference with Basil of Ancyra, and was convicted of Heresy. However this be, Theodoret says, that Eustathius of S••bastea presented to the Emperour a Confession of Faith, wherein it was said that the Son of God was not like his Father, and accus'd Eudoxius of maintaining it; that the Em∣perour having given it to this Bishop he denied it, and said that it was Aetius's, and that Aetius, having acknowledged it for his, was driven out of the Palace. While these things are doing, the Nicene Creed, which was Sign'd at Ariminum, was * 1.66 brought to Constantinople, and the Emperour having propos'd it, it was Sign'd by all the Bishops of both Parties.

Of the COUNCIL of Constantinople.

THE Acacians having stay'd at Constantinople, assembled there a Council of 50 Bishops, in the * 1.67 beginning of the Year 360. Thither they invited the Bishops of Bithynia who were of their Party, and they approv'd and publish'd in this Synod the Creed of the Council of Ariminum, changing only a few things in it. Afterwards they condemn'd Aetius, and excommunicated three Bishops who would not Consent to his Condemnation. But as they condemned this Heretick only out of Policy, that they might obtain the favour of the Emperour who could endure him no longer; so they revenged themselves afterwards upon all the Bishops which oppos'd them in the Synod of Seleucia, and depos'd the Heads of the Semi-Arian Party, who were Macedonius of Constantinople, Basil of Ancyra, Eleusius of Cyzicum, Eustathius of Sebastea, Heortasius of Sardis, and Dracontius of Pergamus. In the Second Session, they added to these Silvanus of Tarsus, Sophronius of Pompeiopc∣lis, Elpidius of Satala, and Cyril of Jerusalem. They alledg'd many Pretences for deposing of them, and ordain'd in their room Persons of A••tius's Party. Eudoxius possess'd himself of the See of Con∣stantinople.

Of the SYNOD of Melitine.

THere is mention made in the Council of Constantinople, whereof we have just now spoken, of a * 1.68 Synod held at Melitine about the Year 357. This Synod was compos'd of Bishops of Acacius's Party, since they alledge his Authority in the Council of Constantinople, and condemn Elpidius for having received a Priest who had been depos'd in this Synod. St. Basil in Letter 74 testifies, That Eustathius of Sebastea was depos'd in this Council. St. Cyril was present there, if we may believe the Bishops of the Council of Constantinople. This is all that we could learn of this Synod, of which we have very little in Antiquity.

Of the SYNOD of Antioch.

THE Church of Antioch continuing vacant by the departure of Eudoxius, Meletius was ordain'd * 1.69 Bishop of it by a Synod which Constantius call'd in 361. 'Tis said that some time after being in∣vited to preach before the Emperour upon these words of the Proverbs, God hath created me in the beginning of his ways, he declared openly for the Faith of the Church; whereupon the Eudoxians call'd a Second Synod at Antioch, and depos'd him under pretence that he had received into his Commu∣nion some Clergy-men who were depos'd by Eudoxius, and ordain'd Euzoius in his room. After∣wards they made a Confession of Faith, wherein they discover plainly their impious Doctrine, making no scruple to declare, That the Son of God was not at all like his Father in Substance, and that he was created of nothing. This was the last Synod held under Constantius, and the last of the Creeds made by his Order.

Of the COUNCIL of Alexandria.

ST. Athanasius being returned to Alexandria after the Death of Constantius, held a Council there * 1.70 to enquire what way they should take with the Arians who were willing to be reconciled to the Church. In this Council the State of the Church of Antioch was considered, and the Bishops deputed Asterius Bishop of Amasea, and Euse••ius of Verceilles, to make Peace in that Church. The Question of the three Hypostases was debated in this Council; and it was determin'd that it did not concern the Faith, and that those who say there are three Hypostases in the Trinity are of the same Opinion with those who say there is but one, because they understand the same word differently. In it they also speak of the Mystery of the Incarnation, and determine, That the Word did not only take a Body but also a Soul, and a Mind. We have lost the Synodical Letter, but the Letter which St. Athanasius wrote to the Church of Antioch by the Order of the Council, is still extant. He enjoyns them to re∣ceive the Christians who assembled in the ancient Church of Antioch, without exacting of them any other Condition, save only, that they condemn the Heresy of Arius; and be oblig'd to receive the

Faith of the Nicene Council, and that they reject their Error who believed the Holy Spirit to be a Crea∣ture. He advertises them, that no New Creed was made in the Council of Sardica; he gives them an Account of what was determined in the Council of Alexandria, concerning the Hypostasis, and the Incarnation: He exhorts them to labour for Peace, and to shun such Questions as tended only to foment Divisions. This Letter was Sign'd by the Deputies of Lucifer, of Paulinus and Apollina∣rius, and by Paulinus himself who approv'd it when it was brought to Antioch.

Of the COUNCIL of Paris.

THE Western Bishops who had been abused in the Synod of Ariminum, being conscious of their * 1.71 Fault, endeavour'd to repair it by assembling many Synods to annul what had been done there, and to maintain the Nicene Faith. France was none of the last that testified her Zeal upon this occasion. St. Hilary assembled there many Councils for Re-establishing the Faith of the Council of Nice. We have yet in the Fragments of St. Hilary, a Letter of a Council held at Paris, where∣in the Bishops that were there present acknowledge, That they had done ill to consent in the Synod of Ariminum, that they should speak no more of the Word, Substance. They profess to believe, that the Three Persons of the Trinity are of the same Nature, and of the same Substance, and they condemn Auxentius, Ursacius, Valens and Saturninus. This Council was in the Year 362.

Of the COUNCIL of Italy.

'TWas not only in France that the Synod of Ariminum was rejected: The Bishops of Italy also nulled * 1.72 and voided all that had been done in this Synod, and Anathematiz'd Ursacius and Valens as the Heads of the Arians. We have in the Fragments of St. Hilary a Letter written upon this subject in the name of the Bishops of Italy to the Bishops of Illyricum.

Of the COUNCIL of the Egyptian Bishops, held at Antioch.

THE Emperour Jovian, a most pious Prince, being at Antioch in the Year 363, desir'd of St. Atha∣nasius * 1.73 and the Egyptian Bishops, who were come to wait upon him in that City, that they would explain to him the Faith of the Church. These Bishops being assembled, propos'd to him no other Creed but that of the Council of Nice, and rejected the Error of the Macedonians who denied the Divinity of the Holy Spirit. It is commonly thought that this Council was assembled at Alex∣andria: But it appears by the Letter which it presented to the Emperour, related by Theodoret Ch. 3. of the 4th. B. of his History, That it was compos'd of some Egyptian Bishops, representing all the other Bishops of their Province, who had deputed them: Which plainly shews, That this Council was held out of Egypt, in the place where the Emperour was, that is, in Antioch, where 'tis certain St. Atha∣nasius came to wait upon Jovian.

Of the COUNCIL of Antioch under Meletius.

THE Acacians seeing that the Emperour Jovian favoured the Catholicks, joined themselves with * 1.74 Meletius Bishop of Antioch, and held a Council in that City, wherein they declared, That they would embrace the Faith of the Council of Nice, and receive the Term, Consubstantial: But at the same time they add, That this Term must be understood in the sence, which signifies, That the Son of God was begotten of the Substance of his Father, and that he is like in Substance to his Father; That we must not believe that there was any Passion in this ineffable Generation; That we must not make use of the Word, Substance, according to the natural sence of this Term; That it was not us'd but to destroy the Error of Arius, who said, That the Word was made out of nothing, an Error which was revived by the Anomaeans. These Bishops having made this Declaration in their Letter to the Em∣perour, approve the whole and entire Creed of the Council of Nice.

Of the COUNCIL of Lampsacus.

HYpatianus the Deputy of the Bishops of the Hellespont, desired a Council of the Emperours Valens * 1.75 and Valentinian. They appointed one at Lampsacus, where the Bishops assembled in the Year 365. After they had deliberated for the space of Two Months what they should do, they null'd all that had been done at Constantinople by the Intriguing of Eudoxius and Acacius. They declared that the Son of God was like in Substance to his Father, and adher'd to that Profession of Faith which was made in the Synod of Antioch, while the Dedication of the Church of that City was celebrated. They Ordain afterwards, That the Bishops depos'd by the Anomaeans, should re-enter into their Churches, from which they had been unjustly forced away, and they appointed them for Judges the Orthodox Bishops of their Province, and some of those that were nearest to it. They sent Deputies to Valens who was then at Heraclea; but they were not well receiv'd, because Eudoxius had prepossessed the Emperour, who Ordain'd, That the Churches should be given to those of his Party. He oblig'd also Eleusius of Cyzicum, in a Synod held in the Year 366, to agree with Eudoxius; but this Bishop re∣pented of it, and publickly testified the sorrow he had for being overcome by the Sollicitations of the Emperour.

Of the COUNCIL of Singedunum, Compos'd of Arian Bishops.

GErminius Bishop of Sirmium made in 366. a Confession of Faith, wherein he makes profession of believing in Jesus Christ the only Son of God, our Lord and our God, the true Son of God, of the * 1.76 true Father, God, begotten before all Worlds, like in all things to his Father, in Divinity, in Majesty, in Greatness, in Power and in Wisdom. This Confession of Faith displeas'd Ursacius, Valens and the other Arian Bishops, who desired of him an Account of his Faith. The only Answer that he made to them was, that he would not separate from them: Wherefore they assembled at Singedunum a City of Moesia, and from thence wrote to him to dissuade him from maintaining that the Son of God was in all things like his Father. This Letter is preserved in the Fragments of St. Hilary.▪ 'Tis Dated December 16th. in the Year 366. Germinius answer'd them, [That he made Profession of believing the Son of God to be in all things like to his Father, except the Innascibility, God of God, Light of Light, Begotten before all Ages, who is not made of nothing, but begotten of God his Father. In short he says, That he does not depart from the Creed drawn up by Marcus of Arethusa, which had been formerly sign'd by Ursacius and Valens.

Of the SYNODS held by the Semi-Arians.

THE Bishops who are call'd Semi-Arians, assembled many Councils after the Synod of Lampsa∣cus: * 1.77 They held one at Smyrna composed of the Bishops of Asia, one in the Province of Pam∣phylia, another in Isauria, and one in Lycia. These Councils wrote Letters not now extant, that were carried to Pope Liberius by Eustathius the Deputy of these Bishops, who sent him into the West to make a Reconciliation with those who made Profession of adhering to the Nicene Creed. Eusta∣thius discharged his Deputation, approv'd the Nicene Creed, and obtained Letters of Commendation from Liberius. He brought these Letters to a Synod which was held in Sicily, wherein the Faith of the Consubstantiality was approved; and returning afterwards into the East, he receiv'd the Letters of a Synod of Illyricum held in the Year 367, which declared the Trinity to be Consubstantial, and par∣ticularly established the Divinity of the Holy Spirit. The Letter of this Council is related by Theodoret B. IV. of his History. About the end of this Letter the Bishops of this Council exhort those of the East to choose for filling up the vacant Bishopricks, either the Children of Bishops which were dead, if they found them capable, or the ancient Priests, and not to Ordain for Priests or Dea∣cons such Persons as came out of the Palace or the Army, but to take them out of the inferiour Clergy. The Decision of this Synod was confirm'd by an Edict of the Emperour, address'd to the Asiaticks, wherein he declares that the Term Consubstantial, signifies not only that the Son is like to his Father, but that he is of the same Nature and the same Substance.

Of the SYNOD of Tyana.

EUstathius being returned from the East with Letters of Commendation from the Western Bi∣shops, * 1.78 came to a Synod assembled at Tyana in the Year 368, composed of the Bishops who had declared in Jovian's time, That it was necessary to maintain the ••••aith of the Consubstantiality. Eu∣stathius having read there the Letter of Liberius and the other Western Bishops, was there admit∣ted to Communion, and the Anomaeans were reconciled to the Semi-Arians. A Synod was ap∣pointed at Tarsus; but the Emperour Valens hindred its Meeting there, and caused one to be held in Caria, wherein the Term Consubstantial was rejected.

Of the COUNCIL of Gangra.

THE precise time of this Council is not known. Some have thought that it was held between * 1.79 the Council of Antioch and that of Nice. Others following the Testimony of Socrates and So∣zomen, place it after the Council of Seleucia. This Opinion is confirmed, because that Eusebius who first sign'd the Canons of this Council, was probably the Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, the Prede∣cessor of St. Basil. who held the See of this Church from the Year 362, to the Year 371. This Coun∣cil condemns the Errors of one Eustathius who is different from the Bishop of Sebastea, who under pretence of leading a more perfect and austere Life, established such Practices as were contrary to the Laws of the Church. In the Letter of the Synod, he and his followers are Accus'd, First, Of condemning Marriage, and parting Wives from their Husbands; Secondly, Of forsaking the Pub∣lick Assemblies of the Church to keep private Meetings; Thirdly, Of reserving the Oblations for themselves only; Fourthly, Of parting Servants from their Masters, and Children from their Fa∣thers, under pretence of making them lead a more austere Life; Fifthly, Of permitting Women to be habited like Men; Sixthly, Of despising the Fasts of the Church, and observing others, according to their own fancy, even on Sundays; Seventhly, Of believing that it was forbidden in all Times to eat Meat; Eighthly, Of rejecting the Oblations of married Priests; Ninthly, Of despising Holy Places, and the Tombs of the Martyrs; Tenthly, Of believing that none can be Sav'd without part∣ing with all their Goods. These Errors are condemned in Twenty Canons, which have been placed in the Code of the Canons of the Universal Church.

The 1st. condemns those who disallow Marriage, and believe that a Married Person cannot be Sav'd.

The 2d. thunders an Anathema against those who condemn such as eat Flesh, excepting only the Blood of those things that have been offered to Idols, and things strangled.

The 3d. is against those who teach their Slaves to despise their Masters, instead of serving them with respect.

The 4th. is against those who say, we must not take the Communion from the hand of a married Priest.

The 5th. against those who despise the House of God, and the Assemblies there kept.

The 6th. condemns those who would have another than the Publick Church, who despise it, and would have the Ecclesiastical Functions performed without a Priest approved by the Bishop.

The 7th. and 8th. are against those who receive the Ecclesiastical Offerings out of the Church, without the consent of the Bishop, or of those whom he has entrusted.

The 9th. is against those who keep their Virginity, not because of its Excellency, but because they think Marriage to be an abominable thing.

The 10th. against those who insult over Married Persons.

The 11th. against those who despise the Agapae, that's to say, the Feasts of Charity.

The 12th. against those who fansie themselves to be more holy than others, because they wear a sin∣gular Habit, and condemn those that wear decent Apparel.

The 13th. pronounces an Anathema against those Women who leave off their own Habit and wear Men's Apparel.

The 14th. against those who forsake their Husbands out of Detestation of Marriage.

The 15th. against those who abandon their Children, who do not Feed them, nor Educate them in Piety, but neglect them under pretence of Devotion.

The 16th. against those Children who under pretence of Piety forsake their Parents, and show them no more that Respect which they owe them next to God.

The 17th. against those Women who cut their Hair, to destroy the Sign of that Submission which they owe to their Husbands.

The 18th. pronounces an Anathema upon those who Fast on Sundays under pretence of leading a more austere Life.

The 19th. is against those who break the Fasts of the Church without Necessity, and in Contempt.

The 20th. pronounces an Anathema against those who abhor the Assemblies and the Sacrifices which are made in honour of the Martyrs, and despise their Memories.

At last, the Fathers of this Council conclude with these excellent Words:

We ordain these things not to exclude those who would, according to the Advices of Holy Scripture, exercise themselves in the Church by these Practices of Continence and Piety, but against those who use these kinds of Austerities for a Pretence to satisfy their Ambition, who despise those who lead an ordinary Life, and who introduce Innovations contrary to Scripture and the Ecclesiastical Laws. We admire Vir∣ginity when it is accompanied with Humility; we praise Abstinence which is joyn'd with Piety and Prudence. We respect that Retirement which is made with Humility; but we also honour Mar∣riage. We do not blame Riches when they are in the hands of Persons that are Just and Benefi∣cent; we esteem those who cloath themselves Modestly, without Pride and Affectation, and we abhor uncivil and voluptuous Apparel: We have a Reverence for Churches, and we approve the Assemblies which are there made as Holy and Useful: We do not confine Piety to Houses. We honour all places built to the Name of God; we approve the Assemblies which are kept in the Church for the publick Good: We praise the Largesses which the Faithful give to the Church to be distributed among the Poor. In a word, We wish and desire that these things may be observ'd in the Church which we have learn'd from the Scripture and the Tradition of the Apostles.

Of the COUNCIL of Laodicea.

IT has been commonly believed, That this Council was more ancient than that of Nice, but the Re∣gulations * 1.80 which are contain'd in its Canons, do sufficiently discover, that it was held at a time, wherein the Church flourished, and had been a long time delivered from the Pagan Persecutions; which shows that this Council could not have been assembled before the middle of the Fourth Cen∣tury. 'Tis very probable that it was celebrated between 360 and 370. We know nothing of its History; but we have 60 Canons of this Assembly, which regulate many considerable Points of Ec∣clesiastical Discipline, and have been received by the whole Church, and put into the Code of the Canons of the Universal Church.

The 1st. of these Canons declares, That by a kind of Condescention, the Communion ought to be given to those who are married a Second time, after they have for some time given themselves to Fasting and Prayer.

The 2d. is, That the Communion ought to be given to those Sinners who have done Penance for their Crimes.

The 3d. is, That those ought not to be promoted to a Bishoprick who were lately baptiz'd.

The 4th. That Clergy-men ought not to be Usurers.

The 5th. That Ordination should not be made in the presence of those who are in the Rank of Hearers.

The 6th. That Hereticks should not be suffered to enter into the House of the Lord.

The 7th. That in order to the receiving of Hereticks, such as the Novatians, the Photinians, the Quarto Decimani, they ought first to abjure and anathematize all Heresies, and chiefly that whereof they made Profession; and then after they are instructed in our Doctrine, they ought to be anointed with Chrism; and lastly, made partakers of the Holy Mysteries.

The 8th. That they must be wholly baptiz'd a-new who come from the Sect of the Montanist's.

The 9th. That the Faithful ought to be forbidden to go to the Coemiteries or Churches of Here∣ticks to pray there with them, and that those who do it ought to be excommunicated, and do Pe∣nance for their Fault.

The 10th. That Catholicks should not give their Daughters in marriage to Hereticks.

The 11th. That Priestesses should not be ordained in the Church.

The 12th. That the choice of Bishops should be approv'd by the Metropolitan, and by the Bishops of the Province.

The 13th. That the choice of a Bishop should not be wholly left to the People.

The 14th. That the Holy Mysteries ought not to be sent at Easter as a Benediction.

The 15th. That none but the Canon-Chanters who sit in high Chairs, and read in Books, shall sing in the Church.

The 16th. That the Gospel should be read together with the other Books of Scripture, on Saturday.

The 17th. That many Psalms should not be read together, but between every Psalm a Lesson.

The 18th. That the same Prayers should be read at Mattins as at Vespers.

The 19th. That after the Bishop's Sermon, the Prayers of the Catechumens shall be read apart by themselves, and when these are gone forth, then shall be the Prayer of the Penitents; and Lastly, after these have withdrawn having received Imposition of Hands, the Prayer of the Faithful shall be made at three times successively: That the First Prayer shall be made in silence, but the Second and Third Prayers shall be pronounced with a loud Voice, and after that the Peace shall be given; that when the Priests shall give it to the Bishop, the Laity shall give it to themselves, and afterwards the Obla∣tion shall go on till it be finished; and that none but those who are Holy shall be suffered to approach the Altar to receive the Communion.

The 20th. forbids Deacons to sit in the presence of a Priest without his leave, and it ordains like∣wise, That the other Ministers and all the inferiour Clergy shall show the same respect to Deacons.

The 21st. forbids Ministers to do the Offices of Deacons, and to touch the Holy Vessels.

The 22d. and 23d. forbids Ministers and Readers to carry the Stole.

The 24th. forbids all the Ecclesiasticks to go to a Publick House.

The 25th. declares, That Ministers must not give the Holy Bread nor bless the Cup.

The 26th. That those who were never ordained by Bishops, must not meddle with exorcising in the Church, or in Houses.

The 27th. That those Ecclesiasticks who are invited to the Love-Feasts, must not carry any Meat away with them to their own Houses.

The 28th. That these Feasts must not be made in Churches.

The 29th. That Christians must not observe the Ceremonies of the Jews, nor Feast on Saturday▪ but they must labour on this Day, and abstain from labour on Sundays.

The 30th. That an Ecclesiastick or Monk, must not wash in the Baths with Women.

The 31st. That Men ought to give their Children in marriage to Hereticks.

The 32d. That the Blessing of Hereticks ought not to be received.

The 33d. That the Faithful ought not to pray with them.

The 34th. That a Christian ought not to forsake the Martyrs of Jesus Christ to go and honour false Martyrs which have been Hereticks.

The 35th. That Christians ought not to forsake the Church to invoke Angels, and keep Meetings in private.

The 36th. That those ought to be cast out of the Church who practise Magick, Judicial Astrology, and Witchcraft, &c.

The 37th. That the Faithful ought not to celebrate the Feasts of Jews or Hereticks.

The 38th. That they ought not to use the unleavened Bread of the Jews, nor follow their Cere∣monies.

The 39th. That they ought not to celebrate the Feasts of Pagans.

The 40th. That the Eastern Bishops ought to be present at a Synod to reform others there, or to be reform'd themselves.

The 41st. and 42d. That a Clergy-man must not go out of his Diocess, without Canonical Letters, without the permission of his Bishop.

The 43d. That the Porters should not leave the Gates of the Church for a moment under pretence of praying.

The 44th. That Women ought not to come near the Altar.

The 45th. That none ought to be baptized in the Second Week of Lent.

The 46th. That he who is to be baptized, ought to be instructed in the Faith, and that he ought to give notice on Holy▪ Thursday to the Priests or the Bishop, that he will present himself to Baptism.

The 47th. That those who were baptized during their Sickness, ought to be instructed when they recover their health.

The 48th. That those who are baptized, after Baptism should be anointed with Heavenly Chrism.

The 49th. That no Offerings should be made during Lent but on Saturdays and Sundays.

The 50th. That they should not break their Fast in the last Week of Lent; but Fast throughout the whole Lent eating nothing but dry Meats.

The 51st. That the Feasts of the Martyrs ought not to be observed in Lent, but on Saturdays and Sundays.

The 52d. That Marriages should not be celebrated in Lent.

The 53d. That Christians ought not to behave themselves disorderly at Marriage-Feasts, nor Dance there, but take their Repast Modestly.

The 54th. That Clergy-men ought not to be present at the Shows or Balls, that are made during Mar∣riage-Feasts, but arise and be gone before the Mask begins.

The 55th. That neither Clergy-men nor Lay-men, ought to make Feasts at Taverns, by paying every one their Club.

The 56th. That Priests ought not to enter, nor go up into the Pulpit, before the Bishop be come into the Church, unless he be sick or absent.

The 57th. That Bishops must not be plac'd in Towns, nor Villages, but Visitors, who ought to do nothing without the Advice of the Bishop who is in the City, and that the Priests ought to observe the same thing.

The 58th. That neither Bishops nor Priests ought to make the Oblation in their own Houses.

The 59th. That private Psalms ought not to be sung in Churches, nor any Books read there which are not Canonical, but only the Canonical Books of the Old and New Testament.

The 60th. and Last Canon contains an Enumeration of the Canonical Books of the Old and New Testament. It places in the number of the Canonical Books of the Old Testament those which the Jews acknowledged; and in this number it places Esther, Job and Ruth, but not Tobit, Judith, Eccle∣siaesticus, Wisdom, nor the Books of the Maccabees. The Canonical Books of the New Testament are the Four Gospels, the Acts, and the Seven Canonical Epistles, and the Fourteen Epistles of St. Paul; but the Revelation is not in this Catalogue.

Of the COUNCIL of Rome under Damasus.

IN the Year 370, Pope Damasus assembled a Council at Rome, in whose Name a Synodical Letter was written against the Arians, produced in Greek by Theodoret, B. VI. of his History, Ch. 23, and * 1.81 by Sozomen, B. II. Ch. 22. and published in Latin by Holstenius. It is address'd to the Bishops of Illyricum, and not to the Bishops of the East, since these last are mentioned in the Third Person. This Synod confirms the Faith of the Council of Nice; and declares that Auxentius Bishop of Milan was condemned by the Bishops of France. It excommunicates those who do not believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one and the same Divinity, and one and the same Substance. It observes, That the Council of Ariminum, could not prejudice the Decisions of the Council of Nice, because those who made the Creed of Ariminum, protested afterwards against what they had done, and also because nei∣ther the Bishop of Rome, whose Judgment was chiefly to be waited for, nor Vincentius of Capua, nor many other Bishops, did ever consent to the Decision of the Council of Ariminum. Lastly, they say, That they hope that the Bishops who hold not the Doctrine established by the Nicene Creed, should quickly be deprived of their Bishopricks, and they exhort the Bishops of Illyricum constantly to de∣fend the true Faith.

Of the COUNCIL of Rome against Ursicinus.

THIS Council was held in the Year 372. against Ursicinus the Anti-pope. In it the Associates of this pretended Bishop are condemned, and among others Florentius of Puteoli, and the Bi∣shop * 1.82 of Parma.

Of the COUNCIL of Valence.

IN the Year 374, Phaebadius or Fegadius Bishop of Agen, and 20 Bishops more, assembled at Va∣lence to settle some Commotions of this Church, and having regulated this Affair they made Four * 1.83 Canons for the Reformation of Discipline.

In the First they forbid those to be Ordained for the future who have been twice Married, or those who have espous'd a Widow, whither they did it before or since their Baptism: But they do not meddle with the Ordinations of Bigamists made before their Decision, lest they should disturb the Church.

In the 2d. Canon they Ordain, That Penance shall not immediately be allowed to those Virgins, who Married after they had made a Vow of Virginity, and that they shall not be receiv'd until they have made full satisfaction.

The 3d. Canon delays Absolution of those till death, who having been baptized, did partake in the Profane Sacrifices of Devils, and exhorts them in the mean time to do Penance for their Fault, and to wait for the Remission of it from the Mercy of God.

In the last place they declare, That all those Deacons, Priests, and Bishops must be deposed, who confess themselves guilty of some great Crime, whether they did really commit it, or only accuse themselves falsly of it. There is a Letter prefixed to these Canons, wherein they address to the Bishops of the Five Provinces, and of Gaul, after which there follows another Letter written to the Church of Frejus, wherein the Synod acquaints it, That tho' the Bishop Concordius had spoken in behalf of one Acceptus, who probably had accused himself of some Crime whereof he was not guilty, yet the Synod did not think fit to make an Exception in his favour from the general Rule which they had made. To give a Reason of this Rule they add, That tho' they knew that many Persons accuse themselves of those Crimes which they have not committed, from the dread they have of the Priest-hood, yet Men being more inclined to judge ill than well, they thought fit that all those who had

said ill of themselves should be removed from the Priesthood, whether it were true or false, for fear of giving occasion of Disputes, by those Accusations which might be urged against the Ministers of Jesus Christ of such Crimes, whereof they might be convicted by their own Testimony. This Synod con∣sisted of 21 Bishops. Phaebadius of Agen is the First; in it there is found also the Names of Rhodanius of Tholouse, of Justus of Lyons, of Britto of Triers, of Florentius of Vienna, and of Concordius of Arles. 'Tis observed in some Manuscripts, That it consisted of 30 Bishops, but perhaps this number ought to be corrected, by making it 21.

Of the COUNCIL of Antioch for restoring Peace in that Church.

THE Church of Antioch for a long time had been rent in pieces with Divisions. After the Depo∣sition * 1.84 of the Great Eustathius, some rigid Catholicks had always maintain'd themselves without a Bishop, till Lucifer Ordain'd one Paulinus; but the greatest part of the Catholicks acknowledged Meletius for their lawful Bishop. The East favoured this last, Egypt and the West adher'd to Pauli∣nus. St. Basil us'd all his Endeavours in vain to reconcile them, for he could not compass it; but Nine Months after his death, as is observ'd by St. Gregory Nyssen in the Life of St. Macrina, in the Year 378, a Council was held at Antioch, wherein the Two Parties were reconciled, upon condition that no Bishop should be Ordain'd in his room who should die first, but the Survivor should continue sole Bishop. Theodoret says, That Paulinus would not accept this Condition, but the Bishops of Italy affirm the contrary in the Letter of the Council of Aquileia, and in the Fifth Letter of the Council of Italy. There was receiv'd in this Synod a Confession of Faith sent from the West, which is call'd the Tome of the West, as it is declar'd in the Fifth Canon of the Council of Constantinople. 'Tis probable, That this Tome is either the Synodical Letter of Damasus, or the Anathematisms which follow it. Baronius says, That Deputies were named in this Council, and he grounds this Conjecture upon a Passage of St. Gregory Nyssen, who says, That he was deputed by a Council; but it cannot be known at present, whether he speaks of this Council or of another.

In short, Valesius ••ttributes to this Council the Letter 69 of St. Basil, written by several Bishops, to the Bishops of Italy and France, wherein mention is made of a Writing of the Bishops of the West: but this Conjecture cannot be maintain'd, since there are among the Bishops, in whose Name this Let∣ter was written, the Names of St. Basil Bishop of Caesarea, and Theodotus of Nicopolis, who were dead when the Synod, which we now speak of, was held; besides that there is no mention in it of the Reconciliation of Meletius and Paulinus, which was not till after the death of St. Basil.

Of the COUNCILS of Constantinople.

FOR the better understanding the History of the Council of Constantinople, which is called the * 1.85 Second General Council, we must distinguish Three Assemblies of Bishops held at Constantinople at Three several times.

The First was held in the Month of May in the Year 381. In was compos'd of all the Bishops of the Eastern Empire, except Egypt. Meletius of Antioch presided in the Assemble, and confirmed St. Gregory Nazianzen in the See of the Church of Constantinople. There is some probability that in this Synod the Canon was made, wherein the Election of Maximus is condemned, who endeavou∣red to invade the See of the Church of Constantinople, and also the Canon wherein the second place of Honour is granted to the Bishop of Constantinople. However this be, Meletius died before the end of this Synod, his Body was carried back to Antioch, and the Eastern Bishops chose in his room Flavia∣nus, contrary to the Promise that was made while Meletius was alive, That no Person should succeed in the room of the Bishop that died first.

Of the Second COUNCIL of Constantinople.

WHEN Flavian was Ordain'd, the Eastern Bishops returned to Constantinople, at the begin∣ning * 1.86 of the Year 382. They were never after so favourable to Gregory Nazianzen, because he reprehended the Ordination of Flavianus, as a thing contrary to the Agreement that was made; and therefore this Saint had no sooner proposed to withdraw, but almost all the Bishops consen∣ted to it. After his retirement, the Council Ordained Nectarius Bishop of Constantinople. 'Tis to this Synod that the Canon and Creed of the General Council of Constantinople are attributed. In it was read the Letter of the Western Bishops assembled at Aquileia, wherein they desire that a General Council of the East and West may be held at Alexandria. The Eastern Bishops answer'd, That they could not go farther off, and they only sent Three Deputies into the West, to acquaint them with their desires of Peace, and to imform them of the truth of their Doctrine.

The Western Bishops being dissatisfied with this, and with what was Ordain'd in the Council of Constantinople, complained to the Emperour, First, That they had Ordained Flavianus in the Room of Meletius, contrary to the promise made while he was alive; Secondly, That they had Ordain'd Ne∣ctarius Bishop of Constantinople without any regard to Maximus who had been Ordain'd by the Pa∣triarch. Thirdly, That they had avoided the calling of a General Council, that they might hold one at Constantinople. At last, they pray that a General Council may meet at Rome to determine all Diffe∣rences: For say they, 'tis fit that the Eastern Bishops should not despise the Judgment of the Bishop of Rome, and the Bishops of Italy, since they have waited for the Judgment of Ascolius of Thessalonica

We do not, add they, assume to our selves the Prerogative of this Examination, but we expect to have a part in the Judgment, because the Judgment ought to be common to all those who are of one and the same Communion.

Of the Third COUNCIL of Constantinople.

THIS Letter from those of the West, was deliver'd in the Year 383, to a Synod assembled at Constantinople, whereof Nectarius was President. The Bishops of this Council made answer, * 1.87 That they wished they could be present at Rome to treat there of the Affairs of the Church; but not being able to do it lest they should leave their Churches in a forlorn condition, they thought it would be sufficient to give them an account of all that they had ordain'd. They say therefore, That they have approved the Creed of the Council of Nice, That they admit one and the same Divine Majesty in Three Persons, That as to the Incarnation they have a very Orthodox Doctrine, being persuaded that Jesus Christ took a Body, Soul and Spirit, and that he is a perfect Man. They prove that this is their Doctrine by the Tome of the West, which they approved at the Synod of Antioch. As to the manner of Governing the Churches, they declare, That according to the Canons of the Council of Nice, they believed that the Bishops of each Province, ought to Ordain the Bishops of their own Province, and call in to their assistance their Neighbours also, if they thought fit: That according to this Law Nectarius was ordained Bishop of Constantinople in the General Synod, with the Consent of the People and Clergy of Constantinople, and in the presence of the Emperour; that after the same manner Flavianus was ordain'd by all the Bishops of the Province and of the Diocess of the East, and that St. Cyril was some time ago ordain'd Bishop of Jerusalem by the Bishops of the Province. They exhort the Western Church to approve of what they had done, and to admonish them to pre∣ferr the Edification of the Church, before the Inclinations they might have to any particular Persons, that so they might re-establish a perfect Union among all the Members of the Church. This is what is contained in the Letter of this Synod related by Theodoret. This Council is not dif∣ferent from that mention'd by Socrates, Ch. 10. of B. V. of his History, and by Sozomen, Ch. 12. of B. VII. In which were present the Chief Bishops of all the Sects, ready to defend their own Opinions: But Nectarius confounded them all, by asking them if they would referr themselves to the ancient Catholick Authors, who lived before the beginning of these Disputes: For some being willing to accept of these Terms, and others refusing to do it, the Emperour who saw them divided, desired of every one their Confession of Faith, and when they had presented them to him, he tore all those in which there was not Profession made of believing the Consubstantial Trinity, and made an Edict against all Heresies.

The Creed of the Council of Constantinople is not very different from that of Nice. The Fathers of this Council have only added some more express Terms, to denote the Divinity of the Holy Spirit, by calling him, The quickning Lord who proceedeth from the Father, who is to be worshipped and glorified together with the Father and the Son, who spake by the Prophets. They make Profession also, of believing one only Holy and Apostolick Church, of confessing one Baptism only for the Remission of sins, of looking for the Resurrection of the dead, and the Life of the World to come. This Creed was not at first received by all Churches, and there were some that would add nothing to the Nicene Creed. For this cause it was perhaps, that no other Creed but that of Nice was read in the Council of Ephesus, and there it was also forbidden to make use of any other: But this of Constan∣tinople was authentically approved in the Council of Chalcedon, where it was read after that of Nice.

It was a long time before the Canons of this Council were approv'd by the Western Bishops: Not only St. Leo rejected them in his Epistle 53, now the 80, but also Gelasius in his Epistle to Dardanus, and St. Gregory in his Epistle 25 of B. VI. rejects them, as not being received in the West; but however, they have been received in the East, and are put in the Code of the Canons of the Uni∣versal Church. 'Tis not easy to tell how many Canons were made in the Three Councils of Constan∣tinople, whereof we have just now spoken, nor to which of the Three they are to be attributed, and whether they were all made in one and the same Synod. The Version of Dionysius Exiguus contains but Three of them; but the Second contains that which is the Third in theGreek, and the Last is reckon'd for the Fourth which concerns the Ordination of Maximus. But the Code of the Canons of the Uni∣versal Church, adds to these a Fifth, which concerns the Tome of the Western Bishops, a Sixth about the Form of Ecclesiastical Decisions, and a Seventh concerning the manner of receiving Hereticks. Photius, Zonaras, Balsamon, and the other Greeks, acknowledged these last Canons, and attribute them to the Council of Constantinople, so that there can be no Question but they were made by one of those three Councils of which we have spoken, but it is more probable that they were made by the Last. First, Because Dionysius Exiguus has not put them in his Collection of Canons; Secondly, Be∣cause Socrates and Sozomen mention only the Four first when they speak of the First and Second Coun∣cil of Constantinople; Thirdly, Because 'tis plain that these Canons are an Addition, or Supplement to the Three other Canons; Fourthly, because it appears that the Fifth Canon was made by some Bishops, who had a Confession of Faith of the Bishops of the West, which they call a Tome, and which they approv'd. Now the Bishops of the Third Council of Constantinople speak of this Con∣fession in their Letter to the Bishops of the West, and give it the Name of a Tome; which shows that the Fifth Canon and this Letter were from the same hand. Lastly, Nicholas the I. in his Letter to the Emperour Michael, cites the Sixth Canon of this Council, as belonging to the Council of Con∣stantinople; but he observes that it is not to be found in his Code of the Canons. These Reasons shew, That the Four first Canons of the Council of Constantinople; belong to the First and Second Synods,

but rather to the First than the Second, because of the Fourth which is against the Ordination of Maximus, and that the three following belong to the Third Synod held in 383.

The 1st. of these Canons confirms the Creed of the Council of Nice, and pronounces an Anathema against all the Heresies that are contrary to it, especially against the Eunomians, the Anomaeans, the Arians, the Eudoxians, against the Semi-Arians who were Enemies to the Holy Spirit, against the Marcellians, the Photinians and Apollinarists.

The 2d. Canon consists of Four Parts: In the First the Bishops of one Diocess are forbidden (taking the name of Diocess for many Provinces) to go out of their own Diocess; and 'tis ordained according to the Canons, That the Bishop of Alexandria shall govern Egypt only; That the Bishops of the East shall govern the East, saving always to the Church of Antioch its Privileges and Prerogatives, which are mention'd in the Sixth Canon of the Council of Nice; That the Bishops of the Diocess of Asia shall regulate what concerns their own Diocess; That those of Thrace shall govern only the Churches of Thrace, and those of Pontus the Churches of Pontus.

The Second Part forbids every Bishop in particular to go out of the Bounds of his own Country to Ordain, or to meddle with the Affairs of the Churches in another Diocess.

The Third ordains, That the Synod of every Province shall regulate what concerns its own Pro∣vince, as had been ordain'd by the Council of Nice.

The Last Part declares, That the Churches which are among the Barbarians, that's to say, those that are without the Roman Empire, shall be governed according to their ancient Customs, because in these Countries there is no distinction of Diocesses or Provinces.

The 3d. Canon grants to the Bishop of Constantinople the first Place of Honour next to the Bishop of Rome: Some have pretended that this Canon is to be extended to Jurisdiction; but this Explica∣tion is contrary to the Terms in which it is conceiv'd, and was never approv'd by Practice, tho' the Bishop of Constantinople taking occasion of this Prerogative of Honour, endeavoured afterwards to usurp the Diocesses of Thrace, of Asia, and of Pontus, which at last were subjected to him by the De∣termination of the Council of Chalcedon. The Reader may see this more largely explained in the first Dissertation about the ancient Discipline of the Church.

The 4th. Canon declares, That Maximus was never Bishop, that his Ordinations are null, and that all that he did ought to be made void.

The 5th. Canon, which is the first of those of the Third Council, approves the Tome of the Bi∣shops of the West, and of those of Antioch who acknowledge one and the same Divinity in the Three Persons of the Trinity. There is also mention made of this Tome in the Council's Letter, and 'tis probable that this was the Synodical Letter of Damasus, sent to the Council of Antioch held in the Year 378.

The 6th. Canon regulates the Form of Ecclesiastical Decisions, and ordains, First, That all sorts of Persons shall not be admitted to accuse Bishops of Crimes which concern Religion; That no He∣reticks, Schismaticks, Persons excommunicated, condemned, and in word, all those that are separa∣ted from the Communion of Bishops shall be allowed to do it. Secondly, That the Accusation of a Bishop shall be carried to the Bishops of his own Province. Thirdly, That if the Bishops of the Pro∣vince cannot judge of the Crimes whereof a Bishop is accus'd, recourse must be had to the Synod of the Diocess. Fourthly, That those who accuse a Bishop, ought in writing to subject themselves to the same Penalty, to which they expose him that is accus'd, if they be convicted of Calumny. Lastly, That if any one slighting these Laws, shall address himself either to the Emperour or to Secular Judges, or shall desire a General Council, without acquiescing in the Judgment of the Bishops of the Diocess, he ought to be heard no longer, since he has violated the Canons, and overthrown the Disci∣pline of the Church.

The Last Canon is concerning the manner of receiving Hereticks, who offer themselves to return into the Bosom of the Church. It ordains, That the Arians, Macedonians, Sabbatians, Novatians, Quartodecimani, Tetratites and Apollinarists, shall be receiv'd after they have made Profession of Faith, and Anathematiz'd their Errours, By the Unction of the Holy Spirit, and the Chrism wherewith they shall be anointed on the Forehead, the Eyes, the Hands, the Mouth, the Ears, at the pronouncing of these Words: This is the Seal of the Holy Spirit. As to the Eunomians, the Montanists, the Sabel∣lians, and all the other Hereticks, the Council ordains, That they shall be received like Pagans; that's to say, That at First they shall receive Imposition of Hands to give them the Name of Chri∣stian; That afterwards they shall be plac'd in the rank of Catechumens; That they shall be exor∣cis'd by blowing three times upon their Faces, and into their Ears; That they shall be catechiz'd, and that for a long time they shall be permitted to hear only the Holy Scripture in the Church; and at last they shall be baptized.

Of the COUNCIL of Aquileia.

THE Council of Aquileia was assembled in the Month of September of the Year 381. It should have been compos'd of the Bishops of the East and West; but St. Ambrose having declared that * 1.88 it was needless to weary the Eastern Bishops with such a Journey, none but the Western Bishops were obliged to come thither, and those of the East were only left at their Liberty to come there if they thought fit. There were about thirty Bishops present at the Council, together with the De∣puties of the Bishops of France and Africa. Valerian was President. In it two Bishops of Dacia and Moesia, nam'd Palladius and Secundianus, were accus'd of Arianism; there was read to them be∣fore the Council, a Letter of Arius, but they would neither approve, nor condemn it, and answered

only, That they should see in two Days time, that they were both Catholicks. This Day being come they appeared before the Council; but they would not acknowledge it for a Judge, desiring a General Council compos'd of the Eastern and Western Bishops; nevertheless they examined them, convicted them of the Heresy of Arius, and condemned them. The Acts of this Council, the Letter which they wrote to the Bishops of France and Spain, to thank them for the Deputies they had sent, and the Letter address'd to the Emperours, wherein there is an account of what they had done, and prays them to hinder the Hereticks from entring into the Church, are still extant: It complains after∣wards of the Crimes of an Arian Bishop nam'd Valens; and Lastly, it supplicates the Emperours to hinder the Assemblies of the Photinians. All these Monuments are extant in St. Ambrose.

The Bishops of this Council wrote a Letter to the Emperour, praying him to drive away Ursicinus, which was publish'd by Sirmondus, and is in the Second Volume of the Councils, p. 998.

They wrote also a Letter which is found in the same place, in which they give the Emperour an Account of the State of the Eastern Empire, they thank him for restoring to the Catholicks the Ea∣stern Churches; but they complain that many things were chang'd there, and that those were not kindly us'd who had always been in the Communion of the Western Churches, as Timotheus of Alex∣andria and Paulinus of Antioch. They pray that a General Council may be assembled at Alexandria, to examine those who ought to be admitted into Communion, and those to whom Communion must be denied. This Letter was delivered to the Emperour, at the time of the Second Council of Con∣stantinople, and was read in this Council.

At last, when the Bishops understood what had been done in the East without consulting them, concerning the Ordination of Flavianus and Nectarius, they complained of it by another Letter, whereof we have already spoken, preserved in the same Volume of the Councils, p. 345. They testi∣fie also by a Fourth Letter which precedes these, how much they could have wished that the Council which they desired had been held, and how necessary it would have been. These Letters do not pro∣perly belong to the Council of Aquileia, but were written some time after in the name of those Bishops which were there assembled, and for executing what they had Order'd. For which Reason, it was thought necessary to mention them here.

Of the COUNCIL of Saragosa.

WHile the Bishops of Italy were thus labouring to procure the Peace of the Church of Rome, * 1.89 those of Spain were no less busied in allaying the Commotions which were rais'd upon oc∣casion of Priscillian and his Disciples. The Council of Saragosa was assembled upon this account about the Year 381, where having condemned Priscillian and his followers, they made some Canons against their Practices.

The 1st. forbids Women to meddle with Teaching and Expounding Articles of Faith.

The 2d. pronounces an Anathema against those who fasted on Sundays from a superstitious or false Principle; and against those who entred not into the Churches during Lent, but hid themselves in their Houses or in the Fields.

The 3d. anathematizes those who having receiv'd the Eucharist did not eat it in the Church.

The 4th. forbids any to be absent from the Church from the 15th. of December until the Epiphany.

The 5th. forbids Bishops under pain of Excommunication to receive those who are excommunica∣ted by their own Bishops.

The 6th. declares, That those of the Clergy must be cast out of the Church, who abandon the Mi∣nistry out of vanity to turn Monks.

The 7th. declares, That it is not lawful for any to take to himself the Title and Name of Doctor, but only those to whom it is granted.

The 8th. forbids Virgins to be veiled, that are devoted to Jesus Christ, except they be Forty Years old.

'Tis easy to perceive that all these Canons are made against the Priscillianists, who affected a singu∣lar Way of living.

Of the COUNCIL of Sida in Pamphylia.

ST. Amphilochius assembled in 383, a Council of 25 Bishops at Sida, a City of Pamphylia, against * 1.90 the Heresy of the Massalians or the Euchaitae. This Council condemned the Errors of these He∣reticks, and wrote a Synodical Letter to Flavianus Bishop of Antioch: It is not now extant. Photius had read it, and he tells us of it in Volume 52 of his Bibliotheca.

The same Photius speaks in this place of a Synod held against these Hereticks at Antioch by Flavianus. There were present in it Three Bishops and 30 Priests and Deacons of the Church of Antioch. There Adelphius a Ring-leader of the Heresy of the Massalians was condemned, and they would not receive him tho' he should have abjur'd his Heresy, because they were persuaded that he would not do it sin∣cerely, these Hereticks making no scruple of renouncing their Doctrine with their mouth. Flavianus sent an account to the Osroënians of what pass'd in this Synod.

Of the COUNCIL of Bourdeaux.

THIS Council was assembled by the Order of the Emperour Maximus, and condemned Instan∣cius a follower of Priscillian, and had condemned Priscillian himself if he had not appeal'd to * 1.91 the Emperour. See what we have said upon this Subject p. 191. 'Tis said, That afterwards there was a Council held at Triers where St. Martin was present. But this Assembly of Bishops who came to Court to desire the Condemation of the Priscillianists, deserves not the Name of a Council. See Sul∣pitius Severus's Account of it in his Dialogues of the Life of St. Martin. The same Sulpitius Severus, at the end of his Second Dialogue, mentions a Council held at Nismes in St. Martin's time, but he ac∣quaints us with nothing that pass'd in it.

Of the COUNCIL of Capua.

THE Council of Capua was assembled by the Emperour Valentinian in the Year 390, to deter∣mine * 1.92 the Difference which was between Flavianus and Evagrius, the Successor of Paulinus in the See of Antioch. In it Theophilus of Alexandria and the Bishops of Egypt were named for Judges of this Cause. But Flavianus would not acknowledge them for Judges, and told the Emperour boldly, who had order'd him to come to Constantinople, that he might send him to Alexandria. Sir, if they accuse my Manners or my Faith, I am ready to submit my self to the Judgment of my Accusers them∣selves; but if they would have my Primacy and See, I will have no dispute with any body about it, nei∣ther will I resist those who aspire to this Dignity; And therefore give the See of Antioch to whom you please. This resolute Answer made the Emperour wonder, who sent him back to Antioch to govern his Church. But tho' the Synod of Capua had not been assembled but for this Affair, yet in it they treated of other things. Bonosus a Bishop was informed against there, because he had the boldness to affirm that the Virgin Mary had Children by Joseph after the Birth of Jesus Christ. The Council referr'd this Cause to Anysius Bishop of Thessalonica, and the other Bishops of Macedonia. They for∣bid him to enter into his Church. This Bishop being disgraced by this Judgment, consulted St. Am∣brose, whether it were lawful for him to enter into it. This Saint answered him, That he ought to do nothing contrary to the Judgment given by the Bishops of Macedonia: And they desiring to ratify their Judgment by the Opinion of the Bishop of Rome, wrote an account of it to Siricius, who an∣swered them, That the Council of Capua having referred this Cause, it did not belong to him to judge of it, but to them to determine it. We learn all this from the Letter of Siricius, which was formerly at∣tributed to St. Ambóse.

This Synod treated also of Re-baptization, of Re-ordinations, and Translations of Bishops, as it is observ'd in the 48th. Canon of the Code of the Canons of the Church of Africa, which is conceiv'd in these Words, We have declared what was Ordained in the Council of Capua, That it was not lawful to use Re-baptization, Re-ordination and the Translation of Bishops. This is all we know of this Council.

Of the COUNCILS of Rome, and of Milan, against Jovinian.

SIricius condemned Jovinian and his followers in a Synod of his Clergy, and his Condemnation was * 1.93 confirmed by a Synod of Milan. We have the Letters of these Two Synods. In the First it is determined, That tho' we ought not to despise nor condemn Marriage, yet Virgins are more to be ho∣noured. The Second contains the Proofs of this truth, and in it is shown, That the Blessed Virgin lost not her Virginity by bringing forth Jesus Christ into the World.

Of the COUNCIL of the Novatians held at Sangarus.

SOcrates mentions in the 21st. Ch. of the 5th. B. of his History, a Council of the Novatians held at * 1.94 Sangarus about the end of this Century, wherein it was declared a thing indifferent to celebrate the Feast of Easter on Sunday or another day, against what was Ordained in another Synod held before that at Pazus.

Of the First COUNCIL of Carthage.

THO' this Council was celebrated in the Year 348, yet we have hitherto delayed to speak of it * 1.95 that we might give an Idaea of all the African Councils of the Fourth Age together. This was a general Council of the African Bishops, and Gratus Bishop of Carthage who was present at the Council of Sardica, presided in it. He spoke first to his Brethren, and said,

That we must first give thanks to God who hath put an end to the Schism, and inspired the Emperour Constantine, (it must be read Constans) to send Paulus and Macarius into Africa to procure Peace there, and for the Liber∣ty which the African Bishops have enjoyed of meeting together in Provincial Councils, and as∣sembling from all the Provinces of Africa; that afterwards we must examine the Heads, about which it will be necessary to make some Decrees, according to the Divine Laws, and the Instructi∣ons of Holy Scripture; but then we must have such a regard to this time of Peace, that we neither weaken the Obligation of the Laws, nor yet prejudice the present Unity by too much severity.

The 1st. Head which he proposed was about Re-baptization. He ask'd, whether that Man ought

to be re-baptiz'd who at his Baptism made Profession of believing the Trinity. The Bishops an∣swer'd: God forbid, We declare that this Re-baptization is unlawful, contrary to the Orthodox Faith and the Ecclesiastical Discipline.

The 2d. Head was to remedy the abuse which the Donatists were guilty of in giving the Name of Martyrs to Fanaticks, who laid violent hands on themselves, or threw themselves head long from Precipices. Gratus was of Opinion, That they should be forbidden for the future to honour these false Martyrs, and that those Lay-men should be put under Penance, who meddled with Deposing of Clergy-men. The Bishops approved his Opinion, and said That the same was Ordained in the Provincial Councils.

In the 3d. they forbid those Persons who profess Virginity, to cohabit or have any familiarity with any Persons of the other Sex, under the pain of Excommunication for the Laity, and of Deposition for the Clergy. The Reason which they give for this Law is excellent: We must, say they, shun the occasions of Sin, remove all kind of Suspicion, and avoid the Snares which the subtilty of the Devil uses to destroy simple Souls which are not upon their guard, under pretence of Charity and Love to our Neighbour.

The 4th. contains the same Prohibition to Widows.

In the 5th. the Bishop Privatus remonstrates, That a Bishop ought not to be permitted to receive a clergy-man belonging to another Bishop, unless he has the permission of his own Bishop; neither ought he to Ordain a Lay-man of another Diocess without the consent of his own Bishop. He alledges the Authority of the Council of Sardica to prove that this Order ought to be observ'd.

In the next, another Bishop nam'd Nicasius remonstrates, that it does not become Clergy-men to take upon them the charge of Secular Affairs. Gratus confirm'd this Remonstrance by the Authority of Scripture, and the Bishops approved it.

In the 7th. another Bishop propos'd, That a Priest or a Lay-man of another Diocess should not be receiv'd into Communion, unless he had a Letter from his own Bishop.

In the 8th. 'tis Ordain'd after the Proposition made by Evagrius, and according to the Opinion of Gratus, That those shall not be Ordained, who have been Guardians, or managed several other sorts of business, till their Accounts be made up and ended.

The 9th. forbids them to choose Clergy-men to be Treasurers or Collectors of the Publick Taxes.

The 10. forbids Bishops to invade the bounds of the neigbouring Diocesses.

The 11th. regulates the numbers of Judges necessary to sit upon a Clergy-man. A Deacon who is accus'd ought to be judg'd by three neighbouring Bishops, a Priest by six, and a Bishop ought not be judg'd by less than twelve.

In the 12th. Antigonus Bishop of Madaura, complains, that after he had made and sign'd an Agree∣ment with Optantius, (who probably was his Rival in the Bishoprick) by which they agreed to divide the People between them, yet this Optantius continued still, contrary to this Agreement, to win the Affections of all the People. The Bishops decree that the Agreement should stand good.

In the 13th. Abundantius Bishop of Adrumetum says, That in the Council of his Province, Priests were forbidden to take Interest. Gratus represented that it was not necessary to make any Canon about this, that they needed only put the Law in Execution which was written in the Gospel; and that if Usury was to be condemned in Lay-men, it was much more damnable in Clergy-men. All the Bishops approv'd his Judgment.

The Last Canon enjoyns Clergy-men and Lay-men to observe these Canons, and those which had been made by other Councils, under the pain of Excommunication for Lay-men, and Deposition for Clergy-men.

Of the Second COUNCIL of Carthage.

FRom the Inscription of this Council corrected by a Manuscript of the Vatican we learn, that it was * 1.96 assembled under the third Consulship of Valentinian and Neoterius, that's to say in the Year 390, on the 14th. of June, at Carthage in the Church of St. Perpetua; That Genethlius Bishop of Carthage presided there, and that Bishops came thither from different Provinces. Genethlius opens the Council by giving thanks to God for the coming of the Bishops to Carthage according to the Letters which he had written to them. He says, That tho' all the Bishops were not present at this Council, yet it was to be believ'd that those who were absent were united in Spirit with it. He recommends afterwards to the Bishops to defend the Faith of the Trinity.

The 2d. Canon renews the Law established in the preceding Council concerning the Celibacy of Bi∣shops, Priests and Deacons.

The 3d. forbids Priests to bless the Chrism, to consecrate Virgins, and to reconcile Penitents at a Pub∣lick Mass. This is one of the most ancient Monuments where the name of Mass occurs to signify the Publick Prayers which the Church made at offering the Eucharist.

The 4th. Canon permits Priests to reconcile Penitents who are Sick and in Danger, with the Bi∣shop's leave.

The 5th. forbids the making New Bishopricks without the leave of the Bishop of the place.

The 6th. forbids the admitting any Persons of bad Reputation as Accusers of Bishops.

The 7th. confirms the Rule made in many Councils, which forbids a Bishop to receive a Person ex∣communicated by his own Bishop.

The 8th. declares, That if a Priest excommunicated by his own Bishop, undertake to offer up Sa∣crifices

in private, and to set up Altar against Altar, thereby making a Schism, he ought to be anathe∣matiz'd, because there is but one Church, one Faith, and one Baptism.

The 9th. forbids Priests to celebrate Mass in all kinds of places: It is call'd in this place, Agenda.

The 10th. ordains, That a Bishop accus'd, who would justify himself, if he cannot call together more, ought at least to defend his Cause before Twelve Bishops, a Priest before Six, and a Deacon be∣fore Three, one of which ought to be their own Bishop.

The 11th. forbids Bishops to intermeddle in the Diocesses of others.

The 12th. declares, That Bishops shall not be ordained without the Consent of the Primate, that's to say, the Metropolitan, and that in a case of necessity three Bishops are sufficient to ordain a Bishop, provided they have the Consent of the Metropolitan.

The 13th. is the Conclusion of this Council, which ordains, That all the Bishops shall observe the Canons which shall be sign'd by all the Bishops present. Some Criticks have doubted of the Truth of this Council, because the Names of Aurelius and Alypius are found in it, who were not Bishops when it was assembled: But these Names are not found in the Edition corrected by the Vatican Manuscript, but in their places there are the Names of Genethlius and Felix.

Of the COUNCILS of Cabarsussa and Bagaïs.

THese two Councils are two Assemblies of Donatist Bishops of contrary Parties: In the First of * 1.97 of which Primianus head of one Party, Bishop of Carthage, was depos'd, and Maximian in the Second. St. Austin quotes the Synodical Epistles of these two Councils; that of the First in the Commentary upon Psal. 36. and that of the Second in divers places of his Books against Cresconius and Petilian. This Father says, That the First Council was held in the Year 393, and consisted of a 100 Bishops; and yet there are but 43 in the Subscriptions of the Council: The Second which was celebrated the next Year, consisted of 310 Bishops.

Of the COUNCIL of Hippo.

THis Council was held at Hippo under the Third Consulship of Theodosius and Abundantius, that's * 1.98 to say, in the Year 393, on the 5th. of October. Its Canons were inserted into the Council of Carthage, in 397.

Of the COUNCIL of Carthage, in the Year 394.

THis Council is mentioned in the Code of the Canons of the African Church, where it is observ'd, * 1.99 that it was held under the Third Consulship of Arcadius, and the Second of Honorius on the 24th. of June, and that Deputies are nam'd in this Council to attend at the Council of Adrumetum.

Of the COUNCILS of Carthage, in the Year 397.

UNder the Consulship of Caesarius and Atticus, who were Consuls in the Year 397, according to the * 1.100 Vulgar Aera, the Bishops deputed from the Provinces of Africa came to Carthage; but they were not all present there at the same time: Some came on the 26th. of August, a Day appointed for the Council, others came not till some time after. Nevertheless, Aurelius Bishop of Carthage, having conferr'd with the Bishops who came first, and received Letters from the Bishops of the Pro∣vinces, who had not yet sent their Deputies, caus'd the Canons which the Bishops, with whom he had conferred, thought fit to make, and those which were propos'd by Letters from the Bishops of By∣zacena, to be read to those that were present. These Canons were received in the Council, which con∣firmed those which had been made in the Council of Hippo.

The 1st. Canon orders all the Churches of Africa, to inform themselves every Year by the Bishop of Carthage, on what Day Easter should be celebrated.

The 2d. ordains, That every Year a Council shall meet, to which every one of the Provinces of Africa was to send three Deputies, excepting only the Province of Trip••lis, which could send but one, because of the small number of Bishops in that Province.

The 3d. requires, That the Canons should be read to those who were to be ordain'd, that they might not be ignorant of them.

The 4th. forbids the Ordination of Deacons, and Consecration of Virgins before the Age of 25 Years, and forbids Readers to Salute the People, that's to say, to address any Speech to them, when they read the Gospel in the Church.

The 5th. ordains, That the Sacraments should not be given to the Catechumens during the Solem∣nity of Easter, but only the Salt which was usually given them; because if the Faithful do not change the Sacraments during these Feasts, the Catechumens ought much less to do it. 'Tis hard to say, what this Sacrament is, which the Council forbids to give to the Catechumens during the Feast of Easter. It cannot be the Eucharist, for that was forbidden to be given them at all times. But the 37th. Canon of the Greek Code of the Canons of the African Church explains it, by observing that the Catechumens were forbidden to offer Honey and Milk on any other Day, but Easter-Day.

The 6th. forbids the giving of the Eucharist to the Dead.

The 7th. regulates the delays of Accusations brought against a Bishop: It orders that their Cause••

shall be carried to the Tribunal of the Metropolitan; but that a Bishop cannot be excluded from Communion, for not appearing till one Month after he shall be cited by the Metropolitan's Letters, and that if he bring a lawful Excuse for his absence, one Month more of delay shall yet be given him; but if he appear not in that time, he shall be excluded from Communion till he be acquitted. And if he be not present at last at the Universal Synod which is held every Year, he is to be look'd upon as self condemn'd; he ought not so much as to communicate with his People, while he is ex∣cluded from the Communion of other Bishops; that his Accuser ought not to be excommunicated unless he fail to appear on the Day when the Cause is to be heard, and that no Person of a bad Re∣putation ought to be admitted to accuse a Bishop, unless the Business be about personal Causes which are not Ecclesiastical.

The 8th. regulates the number of Bishops which are requisite to judge Priests and Deacons. It re∣quires five for judging a Priest, and two for judging of a Deacon. It ordains, That the delays shall be observ'd which are contain'd in the fore-mentioned Canon; and as to others of the Faithful, it declares, That the Bishop of the place may take cognizance of them, and judge them alone.

The 9th. ordains, That if a Clergy-man being accus'd before the Ecclesiastical Tribunal, remove the Cause to the Civil Magistrates, tho' he even gain the Cause, he shall lose his Place, if it be a Criminal Cause; and if it be a Civil Cause, he shall lose what he had gain'd.

The 10th. declares, That if a Person who has appeal'd from one Ecclesiastical Tribunal to other Ec∣clesiastical Judges of greater Authority, be by them acquitted, the Sentence given by the former Judges ought not to prejudice the latter, unless they be convicted of being byass'd by Passion, or cor∣rupted by Favour. It adds, That it is never lawful to appeal from those Judges that are chosen, even tho' they were not a sufficient number.

The 11th. forbids the Children of Bishops and Clergy-men, to act in profane Shows, or to be pre∣sent at them, because it is unworthy of Christians to be present in a place where Blasphemies are spoken.

The 12th. forbids Clergy-men to give their Daughters in marriage to Pagans, or Hereticks and Schismaticks.

The 13th. forbids Clergy-men to make Donations while they are alive, or by their last Will, to such Persons as are not Catholicks, tho' they should be of their Kindred.

The 14th. forbids them to emancipate their Children, unless they be advis'd by their Kindred, or the Children be come to such an Age, that the Sins which they commit can no longer be imputed to their Parents.

The 15th. forbids them to be Farmers or Proctors, or to get their Livelyhood by dishonest Traffick.

The 16th. forbids them to receive more than they had lent.

The 17th. forbids them to co-habit with Strange Women, and permits them only to live with their Mothers, their Grand-Mothers, their Aunts, their Sisters, their Neeces, and those of their Dome∣sticks who dwelt in the House with them before their Ordination.

The 18th. Ordains, That none shall be Ordain'd Priests, Bishops and Deacons, unless they have converted all those who liv'd in the House with them.

The 19th. declares, That Readers are to be obliged, when they come to Age, to Marry, or to make the Vow of Chastity.

The 20th. forbids Bishops to undertake any thing in the Diocesses of their Neighbours.

The 21st. forbids them to detain the Clergy of their Fellow Bishops.

The 22d. Ordains, That no Clergy-man shall be Ordained who has not been examined by the Bi∣shops, and approved by the Suffrages of the People.

The 23d. That in the Prayers the Name of the Father shall not be put in the place of the Name of the Son, That at the Altar the Prayers shall always be addressed to the Father; That those who have composed private Prayers shall not make use of them, until they have conferred about them with Clergy-men of good Learning.

The 24th. That nothing but Bread and Wine mingled with Water shall be offered for the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.

The 25th. That Clergy-men and those who make Profession of Chastity, shall not go to see Wi∣dows or Virgins without the permission of the Bishop or some Priests, that they shall not be with them alone, but with other Ecclesiasticks, or such Persons as the Bishops or the Priests shall appoint them: That Bishops and Priests also shall not visit them alone, but in company with other Ecclesia∣sticks or Christians of known Probity.

The 26th. forbids the Metropolitan to assume the Title of Prince of the Priests or the Sovereign Priest, and declares, That no other Name ought to be given him but that of Bishop of the First See.

The 27th. forbids Ecclesiasticks to eat or drink at an Inn unless it be in a Journey.

The 28th. forbids Bishops to undertake a Voyage beyond Sea without the consent of the Metropo∣litan, from whom they should receive Letters recommendatory.

The 29th. declares, That the Sacraments of the Altar ought not to be celebrated by any Persons but such as are fasting, except on Holy Thursday: So that if the Memory of one that is dead is to be ce∣lebrated in the Afternoon, the Prayers must only be read without Administring the Sacrament.

The 30th. forbids Clergy-men and Bishops to make Feasts in the Churches, and Orders, That the People shall be hindred from doing it, as much as is possible.

The 31st. leaves Bishops the liberty to regulate the time of Penance.

The 32d. forbids Priests to reconcile Penitents without asking leave of the Bishop, unless urgent ne∣cessity enforce the doing of it in his absence. It adds, That Penitents whose Crimes are very publick

and known by all the Church, should receive Imposition of Hands in an high Place near the Bi∣shop's Throne.

The 33d. Ordains, That when Virgins happen to lose their Relations who took care of them, the Bishop, or in his absence, the Priest, ought to place them in a Nunnery, or commit them to the care of Women of known Probity.

The 34th. That sick Persons shall be baptized, who cannot answer any longer, when those who are by them testify that they desired it.

The 35th. That the Grace of Reconciliation shall not be denied to Sorcerers, Comaedians, and other Infamous Persons, nor even to Apostates, when they are converted.

The 36th. hinders Priests from consecrating Virgins without the Bishop's permission, and absolutely forbids them to make the holy Chrism.

The 37th. forbids Clergy-men to dwell in strange Cities, unless the Bishop or the Priests of both Pla∣ces be satisfied, that they have just and lawful Reasons to do so.

Almost all the Canons which we have now mentioned were made by the Council of Hippo, except some which were added by the Bishops of Byzacena. These last are the 35th. and so on to the 47th. in the Code of the African Canons: There is one besides of the Council of Hippo, which is the 47th. in the 3d. Council of Carthage. This contains a Catalogue of the Canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, in the number of which are the Five Books of Solomon, the Books of Tobit, of Ju∣dith, of Esther, the Maccabees, the Three Epistles of St. John, that of St. Jude, and the Revelations. 'Tis added in the Council of the Bishops of Byzacena, That it shall be lawful to read publickly the Pas∣sions of the Martyrs.

What concerns the Canonical Books was also repeated in a Council held in 418, under Pope Boni∣face, wherein it was proposed, That the Churches of Italy should be consulted about this Canon.

There were Two or Three Canons besides of this Council which were explained in the Synod of Car∣thage, that we now speak of, whereof the First declares, That a Bishop shall not be Ordained but by Three Bishops; the Second, That those who have no Testimonials, and do not remember that they were baptized, shall be baptized a-new; and the last declares, That the Donatists shall be receiv'd on∣ly to the Rank of Lay-men.

The other Canons were made in this Council of Carthage. The First, as appears by the Code of the Canons of the African Councils, is the 48th. wherein Honoratus and Urbanus Legates from the Pro∣vince of Mauritania, say, That they have for a long time expected those of Numidia, and declare, That they approve the Nicene Creed, and the Canon which forbids any to celebrate the Holy Sacrifice un∣less he be fasting. They say that Siricius and Simplicianus ought to be consulted about the case of Infants baptized by the Donatists, whether they may be Ordain'd in the Church or no.

In the 37th. the same Legates say, That Re-baptizations, Re-ordinations, and Translations of Bi∣shops being forbidden in the full Synod of Capua, they beg leave to address themselves to the Gover∣nour of their Province, to drive away Cresconius, who had removed from Rhegium to Tuburnia, and would not depart from thence tho' he had been many times admonished. The Council granted them this Leave.

In the 39th. the same Persons desire, that it may be Ordain'd, that the Ordinations of Lay-men cannot be made but by 12 Bishops: But Aurelius having remonstrated that this was impossible in some Provinces, it was Ordain'd, That Three of them at least should meet. But he adds in the next Canon, That if there be any difference, some other Bishops shall be called in to examine what is said against the Person who is to be Ordain'd.

The 41st. declares, That the Bishop of Carthage shall publish Easter-day immediately after the Sy∣nod, which shall be assembled every Year at Carthage.

The 42d. forbids the erecting a Church into a Bishoprick which was put under the Jurisdiction of a Bishop, without his consent.

The 43d. is against those who satisfy themselves with governing their Diocess without attending at Synods.

The 44th. declares, That Clergy-men ought not to be taken from their own Bishops to make them Bishops, without their consent.

In the 45th. Aurelius Bishop of Carthage remonstrates, That commonly leave is desired by him from the Bishop of the place to Ordain one of his Clergy-men; but he desires to know what is to be done if he refuses it.

Numidius observes upon this Proposal, that it was always lawful for the Bishop of Carthage, to take those who were desir'd of him and Ordain them, tho' they were of another Diocess. Epigonius declares in the name of the Bishops, That it is his Right: But Posthumianus remonstrates, That it may happen that a Bishop shall have but one Priest, and it is not just to take him away from him. Aurelius answers, That a Bishop may easily ordain many Priests, but that it is more difficult to find fit Persons to be Bishops; and therefore tho' a Bishop should have but one Priest, he ought to give him that he may be made a Bishop. Posthumianus replies, That therefore it is just, that another Church which has many Clergy-men, should furnish that which has given the one Priest to be a Bi∣shop; and Aurelius answers him, That the Bishop who has many Priests, shall be persuaded to give some of them to him who has given his one Priest to be a Bishop.

The 46th. Canon, which should be the last, declares, That the Bishops which have been ordain'd in a Church, where there was never any before, with the consent of the Bishop of the Place, shall continue in their Bishopricks; but that they shall only govern the People whereof they have been ordain'd Bishops.

After this Canon follows the Approbation and Subscription of the Bishops, which is found in Canon Fifty.

Of the COUNCIL of Carthage held in the Year 398, call'd the Fourth.

THere are 104 Canons which contain the Ordination and Manners of Bishops, Priests, and other * 1.101 Ecclesiasticks, which are attributed to a Council of Carthage call'd the Fourth. The Preface de∣clares, That it was held under the Consulship of Honorius and Eutychianus, that's to say; in the Year 398, and that Aurelius Bishop of Carthage presided in it. But there is some difficulty about the truth of these Canons; they are neither in the Code of the African Church, nor in the Collection of Canons entitled, The Council of Africk, nor in the Collection of Ferrandus, nor in that of Dionysius Exiguus, and there is not so much as one of them cited in these places. In a Manuscript of Cardinal Barberini, these Canons are entituled Ancient Statutes of the Eastern Church; but this cannot be the true Title, because the Ceremonies of the Ordination of the lesser Orders, as they are described in the Canons of this Council, are agreeable to the Practice of the Western Church, who gave them by delivering the Holy Vessels, and is not agreeable to the practice of the Eastern Church which never made use of this Ceremony, but conferr'd them by Imposition of Hands. In other Manuscripts they are entituled, Ancient Statutes of the Church. They agree well enough to the Church of Africa, as appears by the First Canon, where it is Ordain'd, That a Bishop shall be interrogated, about the Errors common in Africa, whether he believes the Consubstantial Trinity; if he believes the Resurrection of this Flesh; if he believes that 'tis the same God who is the Author of the Old and New Testament, of the Law and the Gospel; if he held that the Devil is not wicked by Nature, but became so by his own Will; if he did not condemn Second Marriages; if he did not find fault with those who eat Meat; if he believed that Baptism pardoned all Sins, Original Sin as well as the other actual Sins: Lastly, if he held that a Person may be saved out of the Church. These are the Errors of the Manichees, Do∣natists, and Pelagians which were common in Africk. As to the Article which concerns Original Sin, it is something surprizing that it should be found so expresly set down in a Synod held in 398, since Pelagius did not publish his Error in Africa till 411, and was not condemned till 412. But it may be this Error was already known, tho' Celestius was not yet come into Africa; and there is no doubt but the Church of Africk from that time maintained Original Sin. Howsoever this be, this discovers that these Canons belong to the Western Church, and even to the Church of Africa. I see no reason strong enough to convince me that this Preface is supposititious. The other Canons agree well enough with the Discipline of the African Church. The Reason why they are not found in the Ancient Collections, may be, because they made a Body of Canons a-part by themselves for Ec∣clesiasticks. They are cited under the name of the Council of Carthage, by Isidore, by Hincmar, by Burchardus, by Ivo Carnutensis, and by Gratian.

The 1st. of these Canons ordains, That he who is to be promoted to the Episcopal Dignity shall be examined as to his manner of Life, his Learning and his Faith. As to his manners, it commands that Enquiry be made, if he be Prudent, Teachable, Moderate, Charitable, Humble, Affable and Merci∣ful: As to his Learning, if he be Enlightned and Instructed out of the Law of God, if he be Skilful in the Understanding of the Scriptures, and Vers'd in the Knowledge of the Dogmes of the Church: As to his Faith, the Canon requires that he be examin'd whether he believes the Consubstantial Tri∣nity; whether he believes that the Son of God assum'd real Flesh and a Soul, and that there are two Natures and one Person only in Jesus Christ; and whether he affirms, That he was really dead, and shall rise again to judge the Quick and Dead. It adds, That he who is to be ordained must also be ask'd, If he believes that the same God is the Author of the Old and New Testament; If he believes that the Devil was not wicked by Nature, but became so by his own Free-will; If he believes that the same Flesh which we now carry about with us shall be rais'd again; If he be persuaded of a future Judgment, of future Punishments and Glory; If he does not condemn Marriage and second Mar∣riages; If he does not blame the use of Meats; If he communicates with Penitents that are recon∣cil'd; and if he holds that Baptism blots out Actual and Original Sin. These are the things about which the Fathers of this Council would have him to be examin'd who is to be ordain'd; and they add, that if he be found well-instructed in all these Points, he may be ordain'd Bishop with the Con∣sent of the Clergy and the Laity, in the Assembly of the Bishops of the Province, by the Authority, and in the Presence of the Metropolitan. That after he has received the Holy Orders of Bishop, he ought not to govern himself according to his Passion or Fancy, but according to the Canons of Coun∣cils. They add, That Care should be taken, that none be ordain'd but such as are arriv'd at the Age which the Holy Fathers require for the Ordination of a Bishop.

The 2d. ordains, That when a Bishop is ordain'd, two Bishops ought to lay the Book of the Gospels upon his Head and Neck, and hold it there, and that while one of the Bishops who are present, pro∣nounces the Blessing upon him, all the other Bishops who are present, must touch his Head with their Hands.

The 3d. That at the Ordination of a Priest all the other Priests should lay their Hands upon his Head, while the Bishop Consecrates him, and lays Hands upon him.

The 4th. That none but the Bishop shall lay Hands upon a Deacon, when he is ordain'd, because he is not ordain'd for the Priesthood, but for the Ministry.

The 5th. That the Sub-Deacon who does not receive Imposition of Hands at his Ordination, ought to receive the Pattin and Chalice empty from the Hand of the Bishop; and the Flaggons with Water, and the Bason and Towel, from the Hand of the Arch-Deacon.

The 6th. That the Acolyth at his Ordination ought to learn from the Bishop after what manner he should behave himself in his Ministry; That he receive from the Archdeacon a Candlestick with a Wax-Candle, to instruct him, that he is design'd for lighting the Wax-Candles in the Church; and that he also receive an empty Flagon to give Wine for the Eucharist of the Blood of Jesus Christ.

The 7th. That the Exorcist receive at his Ordination from the Hand of the Bishop a Book wherein are written Exorcisms, and that the Bishop speak to him these Words; Receive these, and get them by heart, and have thou the Power of laying hands upon the possess'd and Catechumens.

The 8th. concerns the Ordination of a Reader, which was made in Africk, by giving him the Book of the Gospels, and saying to him, Be thou a Reader of the Word of God.

The 9th. concerns the Ordination of a Porter, to whom the Bishop gave the Keys, saying unto him, Behave your self as one that must give an account to God of those things which are lock'd up under these Keys.

The 10th. commands, That Virgins who would be consecrated by the Bishop, should present them∣selves in Habits agreeable to their Profession and Vocation, like to those which they are to use for the future.

The 11th. declares, That Widows and Nuns who are employ'd about the Baptism of Women ought to be capable of instructing others, and giving an account of their own Faith.

The 12th. That those who are contracted, and present themselves to receive the Benediction of Mar∣riage, ought to be accompanied with their Kindred, and to abstain from the use of Marriage the Night after the Benediction.

The 13th. That the Bishop ought to have a Lodging near the Church.

The 14th. That his Houshold-Stuff should be of little worth, his Table and Diet mean, and that he ought to acquire Authority by his Faith and his Merit, and not by external Pomp.

The 15th. That he ought not to read the Books of Pagans, nor those of Hereticks, but in case of neces∣sity, and when occasion requires it.

The 16th. and 17th. That he must not take upon him the Care of Widows, of Orphans and Strangers, but that he discharge this Care upon his Arch-Priest, or Arch-Deacon.

The 18th. That a Bishop ought not to be Executor of a Last Will and Testament.

The 19th. That he ought not to plead a Cause.

The 20th. That he ought not to trouble himself with Domestick Affairs, but apply himself wholly to Reading, Prayer and Preaching of the Word of God.

The 21st. That he ought not to dispense with his going to the Synod, unless there be great neces∣sity; and that if he does not go, he must send a Deputy to approve every thing that shall be ordain'd by the Synod, without prejudice to the Truths of Faith.

The 22d. That a Bishop shall not ordain Ecclesiasticks without the Consent of his Clergy, and that he shall desire the Testimony and Approbation of the Laity.

The 23d. That he shall hear no Cause but in the presence of his Clergy, and that the Sentences which he shall give in the absence of his Clergy shall be null and void.

The 24th. That he shall be excommunicated who goes out of the Church in Sermon-time.

The 25th. That if the fear of God does not reconcile the Bishops, they ought to be reconciled toge∣ther by the Synod.

The 26th. enjoyns Bishops to exhort the People of their Diocesses to live in Peace.

The 27th. forbids the Translations of Bishops which are made through Ambition; and as for those which are made for the Good of the Church, it says, they ought to be made upon the Request of the Clergy and People by Order of the Synod: Neither does it permit Clergy-men to remove unto ano∣ther Church without the leave of their Bishops.

The 28th. declares, That the Synod may examine a-new the Condemnation of a Bishop.

The 29th. That a Bishop who accuses a Clergy-man or Lay-man ought to exhibit his Information against him to the Synod.

The 30th. forbids Ecclesiastical Judges to judge in the absence of the Party accus'd.

The 31st. declares, That Bishops ought to use the Goods of the Church, not as their own proper Goods, but as such of which they have only the use.

The 32d. declares all Sale or Exchange of Ecclesiastical Goods to be null and void, which is made without the Consent of the Clergy.

The 33d. declares, That the Bishops and Priests who are forc'd to go into their Neighbour's Churches, shall be received, and that they shall be invited to Preach and to Celebrate the Eucharist there.

The 34th. That a Bishop being seated shall not suffer a Priest to continue standing before him.

The 35th. That a Bishop shall sit on a Seat rais'd on high in the Church, or in the Assembly of his Priests; but in his House he shall converse with them as his Collegues and Brethren.

The 36th. That the Priests who govern the Churches, shall send for the Holy Chrism before Easter.

The 37th. That the Deacon should look upon himself as the Minister of the Priest as well as of the Bishop.

The 38th. That he may give the Eucharist to the People in the presence of the Priest, if necessity enforce it, and the Priest be willing.

The 39th. That he shall not sit down but with the Priest's leave.

The 40th. That in a Meeting of Priests, he must not speak but when he is ask'd.

The 41st. That he shall not make use of a Surplice but at the time of Oblation.

The 42d. That a Minister who discharges faithfully his Ministry ought to be preferr'd to a higher Dignity.

The 43d. That Christians who suffer for Religion, ought to be honoured, and their necessities provided for.

The 44th. forbids Clergy-men to suffer the Hair of their Heads or Beards to grow.

The 45th. exhorts them to make known their Vocation by their Modesty in their Apparel and Coun∣tenance, and forbids them to distinguish themselves by their Habit or their Shooes.

The 46th. forbids them to co-habit with Strange Women.

The 47th. and 48th. forbids them to walk in publick Places, and appear at Fairs.

The 49th. deprives them of their Rewards who are not present at Vigils.

The 50th. declares, That those Ministers should be depriv'd of their Ministery who do not do their Duty, or do it negligently.

The 51st. 52d. and 53d. require all Ministers, how able soever they be, to earn their living by an ho∣nest Trade, yet without failing in their Duty.

The 54th. forbids the Advancement of those Ministers higher, who envy the Prerogative of others.

The 55th. commands Bishops to excommunicate those who accuse their Brethren unjustly, and for∣bids the admitting of them into the Clergy, even tho they should amend.

The 56th. ordains those Ministers to be degraded who are Traytors or Flatterers.

The 57th. obliges Slandering Ministers to make Satisfaction.

The 58th. declares, That his Testimony is not to be received without Examination, who often goes to Law.

The 59th. That the Bishop ought to reconcile those Ministers that are at difference, and that he who will not obey him shall be punished by the Synod.

The 60th. declares, That a Minister ought to be remov'd from his Ministry, who speaks lascivious words.

The 61st. That those Ministers ought to be reprimanded who Swear by the Creatures, and if they continue to do it, they must be excommunicated.

The 62d. That the same severity must be us'd to a Minister who sings at Meals.

The 63d. is against those Ecclesiasticks who break a Fast without inevitable necessity.

The 64th. declares, That he ought not to be accounted a Catholick who fasts on Sundays.

The 65th. That the Feast of Easter ought to be celebrated on the same day.

The 66th. That an Ecclesiastick who believes that his Bishop has condemned him unjustly, may have recourse to the Judgment of the Synod.

The 67th. That seditious Persons, Usurers and revengeful Persons, ought not to be Ordain'd.

The 68th. That those must not be ordain'd who are in the Rank of Penitents, and that if a Bishop has ordain'd any of them through mistake, they ought to be deposed, but if he knew their condition, he shall be deprived of the Power of Ordination.

The 69th. makes a Bishop liable to the same Penalty, who shall ordain a Widow, or a Woman divorced.

The 70th. enjoins Ecclesiasticks to shun the Society and Feasts of Hereticks and Schismaticks.

The 71st. Ordains, That the Name of a Church shall not be given to the Assemblies of Hereticks.

The 72d. That none shall Pray or sing with them.

The 73d. That those shall be Excommunicated who shall Communicate or Pray with them.

The 74th. That the Bishop shall impose Penance upon him that desires it, without respect to the Quality of the Person.

The 75th. That negligent Penitents shall be later received.

The 76th. declares, That if a Person having desired Penance, perceive himself to be seiz'd with a Disease, and lose his Understanding before the Priest can come to him, Penance shall be granted him upon the Testimony of those who affirm that he desired it, and if it be thought that he will quickly die, he shall be immediately reconciled, and the Eucharist shall be put into his Mouth; but yet if he recover his health, he shall be put under Penance.

The 77th. That Penitents who fall sick shall receive the Viaticum, that's to say, the Eucharist.

The 78th. That those who are thus receiv'd, ought not to think themselves absolv'd, if they recover their health, without Imposition of Hands.

The 79th. That if Penitents die in a Journey or at Sea, before the Communion can be given them, yet they shall still be commemorated in the Prayers and Oblations.

The 80th. That Imposition of Hands shall be given to Penitents during all the times of Fasting.

The 81st. That Christian Burial shall be given to Penitents.

The 82d. That Penitents ought to use Kneeling even at those times when the Faithful are exempt from it.

The 83d. That the Poor and Aged must be honoured.

The 84th. That the Bishop ought not to hinder any Person to enter into the Church, whether he be a Heretick, Jew or Pagan, until the Mass of the Catechumens begins.

The 85th. That the Catechumens who would be baptized, ought to give in their Names, and after that be prepar'd for Baptism by abstaining from Wine and Meat, and by Imposition of Hands.

The 86th. That Novices, or those who are newly baptiz'd, ought for some time to abstain from Feasts and Shows, and to live in Continence.

The 87th. contains the Sentence of Excommunication against a Catholick, who carries his Cause, just or unjust before a Judge of another Religion.

The 88th. excommunicates him who forsakes the Assembly of the Church to be present at Shows.

The 89th. casts those out of the Church who practise Sooth-saying or Enchantments, and who are addicted to Jewish Superstitions.

The 90th. declares, That the Exorcists ought every day to lay Hands on the Possess'd.

The 91st. charges the Possess'd to take care that the Churches be swept.

The 92d. declares, That the Exorcists shall feed the Possess'd who continue in the Churches.

The 93d. That Oblations shall not be received from the Brethren that are separated from the Church.

The 94th. That their Presents shall be rejected who oppress the Poor.

The 95th. blames those who refuse to give, in Memory of the dead, wherewithall to feed the Poor.

The 96th. says, That in judging a Cause, the Faith and Conduct of the Accuser and Accused must be inquired into.

The 97th. That the Superiour of Nuns ought to be approved by the Bishop.

The 98th. That a Lay-man ought not to teach in the presence of Priests, unless they command him.

The 99th. That a Woman how Skilful and Holy soever she be, ought not to take upon her to teach in an Assembly.

The 100th. That she ought not to take upon her to baptize.

The 101st. That the young Widows which are weak ought to be maintain'd at the Expence of the Church to which they belong.

The 102d. declares. That it is the fault of the Bishop or the Curate of the Parish, if the Widows and Nuns, are forced through necessity, to have too much familiarity with the inferiour Ministers.

The 103d. That the Widows who are maintained at the Expence of the Church, ought to be very diligent and constant in the Service of God, that they may edify the Church by their Prayers and Works.

The 104th. excommunicates Widows who marry again, after they have made Profession of Ce∣libacy.

Baluzius has added yet one Canon more to these, which is against those who cause Schisms and Di∣visions in the Church of Jesus Christ, which is the Pillar and Foundation of the Faith of Christians. There were many Bishops at this Council, and they all subscribed, but there are none now extant, be∣sides the Subscriptions of Aurelius of Carthage, of Donatianus of Talabreca, or Telepta, and of St. Austin.

Of the COUNCIL of Carthage in the Year 399.

IT was a settled Custom in Africk, that National Councils should be held at Carthage very often. * 1.102 There was one in 399, in the Month of April, which is mentioned in the Code of the Canons of the African Church, which informs us, That this Council sent Epigonius and Vincentius Deputies to the Emperour, to obtain a Law to forbid the taking of those out of Churches who had fled thither, what∣soever Crimes they had been guilty of.

Of the COUNCIL of Carthage in the Year 401, commonly call'd the Fifth.

'TIS commonly thought that this Council was in the Year 398, but it appears by the Code of the * 1.103 Canons of the African Church, that the greatest part of the Canons attributed to this Council were made in Two Assemblies held in the Year 401, in the Months of June and September; and there∣fore we follow this Code in the Abridgment of the Canons of this Council.

Aurelius remonstrates, That it was necessary for relieving the Churches of Africk, which were un∣der great Necessity and Grief, to depute some Bishops into the West, and particularly to St. Anastasius Bishop of the Apostolical See, and to Venerius Bishop of Milan. He represents that the Church of Africk was so abused and had suffered so great a Desolation, that it had no Deacon who was sufficiently learned, and much less a Priest; that therefore one might hear every day the Complaints of an infinite number of languishing People, and that if the Bishops did not relieve them they must be accountable to God for the loss of their Souls.

The 1st. Canon of this Council, which is the 57th. in the Greek Code of the African Church, con∣firms what had been ordain'd in a former Synod, That it should be lawful to Ordain those, who ha∣ving been baptized in their Infancy among the Donatists, were afterwards reconciled to the Church; and it leaves it to the Prudence of the Bishops to consider, whether or no they might not receive a whole Donatist Church with its Bishop, who should desire to be re united to the Catholicks.

In the 2d. Aurelius says, That the Emperours ought to be entreated to destroy the Remainders of Idolatry, and to demolish some Temples which were yet standing.

In the 3d. That they must also be desired to give Orders, that it shall not be lawful to Summon a Clergy-man for a Witness before a Secular Judge, who has been Arbitrator or Judge of some Dif∣ference.

The 4th. That they must be desired to forbid the Feasts and Dancings which are made to the ho∣nour of False Gods.

The 5th. That they must be prayed to hinder the showing of Sports, Plays and Comedies, on Sun∣days and Festivals, particularly at Easter-time, when it happens sometimes that more People go to the Circus than to the Church.

The 6th. That they must be entreated to give Order, that no Person shall defend an Ecclesiastick condemned by the Bishops, under the pain of Correction and a Fine.

The 7th, That they must be desired to hinder Comedians who turn Christians from being forced to exercise their Profession.

The 8th. That the Power of enfranchising Slaves in the Church must be desired.

The 9th. declares, That if one Equitius a Bishop, be found in Italy, who had been condemned in Africk, leave shall be desired to make a Process against him.

These are the Canons of this First Assembly in the Year 401.

The other Assembly was held the same Year on the 13th. of September. In it were read the Let∣ters of Pope Anastasius, who exhorted the Bishops of Africk not to dissemble the Vexations which they suffer from the Donatists. Nevertheless the Bishops were of Opinion, that they should be treated with gentleness, and that a Letter only should be written to the Governours of Cities, to pray them to cause those Churches to be restored to the Catholick Church, which the Maximianists had usurped. This is found in the Canons 66 and 67, of the Greek Code of the Canons of the African Church.

The 68th. permits the Bishops for Peace-sake, to receive into the Catholick Clergy, those Clergy-men of the Donatists who should be converted.

The 69th. declares, That some shall be deputed to the Donatists, to remonstrate to them, that they ought to be reconciled to the Church.

The 70th. Ordains Bishops, Priests and Deacons to have no more to do with their Wives, under pain of Degradation; for the lesser Orders, it does not oblige them to Celibacy.

The 71st. forbids a Bishop to forsake the principal Church of his Diocess and make his abode at another.

The 72d. declares, That Children ought to be baptized, when there is no proof, nor testimony that they have been already baptized.

The 73d. renews the Canon which Ordains, That the Bishop of Carthage shall publish Easter-day.

The 74th. forbids him, who has the care of a Church committed to him after the death of its Bishop, to continue there more than one Year; and obliges him to cause a Bishop to be chosen; and if he neglects it, the Canon ordains that at the end of the Year, another Steward shall be chosen for the Church.

The 76th. is against the Bishops who absent themselves without cause from the National Council.

The 77th. is against a particular Bishop named Cresconius, who refused to come thither. The Coun∣cil Ordains, That he shall come to the first National African Council, and if he did not, that a Sen∣tence should be pass'd against him.

The 78th. names Deputies for deciding a Difference of a Church in Africa.

The 79th. declares, That those Clergy-men are not to be admitted to justify themselves who have continued a Year without taking pains to take off the Excommunication which was pronounced against them.

The 80th. ordains, That if a Bishop give Holy Orders to a Stranger, or if he make a Monk of ano∣ther Monastery, Superiour of his own Monastery, he shall be separated from the Communion of the other Bishops, and shall enjoy only that of his own Church, and that he who was made Clergy-man or Superiour, shall not enjoy that Honour.

The 81st. is against those Bishops who should make Hereticks or Pagans their Heirs, tho' they should be of their Kindred.

The 82d. declares, That the Emperour shall be desir'd to grant the Power of setting Servants free to the Church.

The 83d. is concerning the Care which Bishops ought to take, to hinder the Faithful from honour∣ing False Relicks and False Martyrs.

The 84th. declares, That the Emperour shall be requested to demolish the remaining Temples and Idols.

The 85th. and Last gives Power to the Bishop of Carthage to Dictate and Subscribe, in the name of the whole Council, the Letters which the Council thought fit to write and send. These are the Canons of the Fifth Council of Carthage, which is commonly plac'd in the Year 398, but was in∣deed in the Year 401, according to the two Codes of the Canons of the African Church.

The Reflections which may be made on the Councils of Africa of which we have just now spoken, are these; First, That there were in Africa a great number of Bishops; Secondly, That the Title of Metropolitan in Africa, was not as in other places, affixed to the Bishop of the Civil Metropolis, but to the Antiquity of the Bishoprick; Thirdly, That the Bishop of Carthage had much Authority over all Africk; That he enjoy'd great Jurisdictions and Prerogatives; in a word, That he was as it were, the Exarch or Patriarch of all Africa; Fourthly, That Synods were very often held in Africa, and they were distinguished into two sorts, one Provincial and the other National or General, which were commonly held at Carthage, where the Bishops deputed from the Provinces assembled under the Au∣thority of the Bishop of that City; Fifthly, That they handled Matters of Discipline, and made such Canons as they saw the Juncture and State of Affairs requir'd; Sixthly, That their Discipline with respect to Clergy-men, was very Regular and Exact; Seventhly, That they endeavour'd to maintain the Ecclesiastical Authority by the Assistance of the Imperial Laws; Lastly, That they made many Canons very useful for all Christians. These Reflections seem'd necessary for explaining what I have said of these Councils, and they may conduce to represent and discover the usefulness of Councils in general.

Of the COUNCIL of Constantinople, in the Year 394.

BAlsamon has preserv'd a Fragment of this Council held at Constantinople on the 27th. of September in the Year 394. It was compos'd of three Eastern Patriarchs, Nectarius of Constantinople, Theo∣philus * 1.104 of Alexandria, and Flavianus of Antioch, and of Sixteen Bishops of the East and of Asia. In it the Difference was examin'd that was between Agapius and Bagadius, who both pretended to the Bishoprick of Bostra. Bagadius had been depos'd by two Bishops. The Council disapproves this Judg∣ment, and declares, That as a Bishop cannot be ordain'd but by three Bishops, so neither can he be depos'd by less than three. Theophilus says, That three Bishops are not sufficient, but all the Bishops of the Province should assemble if it be possible, and all the Synod approv'd his Judgment. This is all we know of this Council.

Of the COUNCIL of Alexandria, in the Year 399.

THeophilus assembled in the Year 399, a Council at Alexandria, wherein he condemn'd the * 1.105 Books of Origen. Justinian quotes a Fragment of the Letter of this Council in his Epistle to Menas.

Of the COUNCIL of Cyprus, at the same time.

WIthin a little time after St. Epiphanius, being persuaded by the Letters of Theophilus, held a * 1.106 Council in the Isle of Cyprus, and there also caus'd the Books of Origen to be condemned.

Of the COUNCIL of Turin.

THE Bishops of Africk were not the only Bishops who took care to maintain the Discipline of the * 1.107 Church about the end of the Fourth Century: Those of Gaul and Spain have also left us authen∣tical Monuments of their Pastoral Vigilance. The former in the Canons of the Council of Turin, and the latter in those of the Council of Toledo, for these Two Councils were assembled in the Year 400, or thereabouts.

The Council of Turin determin'd several Differences between the Churches and Bishops of Gaul.

The 1st. is, That which Proculus Bishop of Marseilles had with the Bishops of Gallia▪ Narbonensis, of which he would be acknowledg'd Metropolitan. The Council, for Peace-sake, granted to the Person, and not to the See of Proculus, the Jurisdiction of a Primate over all the Churches in the Se∣cond Narbonensis.

The 2d. Difference was between the Bishops of the Churches of Arles and Vienna, who contested the Right of Primacy. The Synod declares, That this Right belongs to him who shall prove that his City is the Metropolis; but in the mean time it ordains, as a Provision for preserving Peace, That the Bishops of these two Churches shall have under their Jurisdiction the Churches which are nearest to their own Cities, and that they shall live hereafter in Peace, without disturbing one another, by usurping the Churches that are remote.

The 3d. Question which was to be determined in this Synod, concern'd Four Bishops, who had made Ordinations contrary to Order: The Council remits their Fault, on condition that they will not relapse into it any more, and ordains, That for the time to come, those who shall relapse into it, shall be disabled from coming to Synods, and that those who shall be so ordain'd, shall be depriv'd of the Priesthood.

The 4th. is concerning a Lay-man call'd Palladius, who complain'd of a Sentence given against him by his own Bishop, Triferius, before whom he was not able to prove a Crime of which he had accus'd a Priest. The Council confirms the Sentence of Triferius, leaving him nevertheless the Liberty to show favour to Palladius.

It confirms also in the 5th. Canon another Sentence of the same Bishop, given against the Priest Exu∣perantius, who had vomited forth many Calumnies and Reproaches against him.

The 6th. Canon is against those who communicated with Felix Bishop of Triers, who was of the Faction of the Ithacians.

The 7th. forbids Bishops to take Clergy-men from any one of their Brethren, to ordain them in their own Churches, and to receive those into Communion who have been excommunicated in some other place.

The 8th. declares, That those who have been ordain'd contrary to the Canons, and who being or∣dain'd have had Children, ought not to be advanc'd to higher Orders.

Of the COUNCIL of Toledo.

THis Council was held in the Year 400, and compos'd of Nineteen Spanish Bishops assembled at * 1.108 Toledo, who having made Profession of the Faith, and condemn'd the Errors of the Priscillianists, made Canons concerning Discipline. The First thing which they ordained was, That the Canons of the Council of Nice should be observ'd: And afterwards they made 20 other Canons.

In the 1st. they permit the Order of Deacon to be given to married Persons, provided they be chast, and preserve Continence; but they impose no other Penalty upon a Deacon or a Priest who

has not liv'd in Continence, and who had Children before the Law * 1.109 which the Bishops of Lusitania made upon this Subject: They im∣pose upon them, no other Penalty, but that they shall not be capa∣ble of rising to a higher Dignity.

The 2d. Canon forbids the ordaining of a Person who has done publick Penance: It adds, That if necessity require, he may be made a Porter or at most a Reader; but upon Condition, that he neither read the Epistles, nor Gospels, and that if any such Person has been ordain'd Deacon, he shall be only in the rank of Sub-Deacons, without being capable of laying on of Hands or touching Holy Things. 'Tis observed afterwards, that a * 1.110 Penitent is he who having done publick Penance after his Baptism, for Murder, or some other Crime of like Nature, has been publickly re∣concil'd at the Altar of God.

The 3d. Canon declares, That if a Reader marry a Widow, he cannot be advanc'd to higher Orders, and that at most he shall only be a Sub-Deacon.

The 4th. That a Sub-Deacon who marries again, shall be put in the rank of Porters or Readers, without being capable of reading the Epistles or Gospels; That he who shall marry a third time shall be separated from the Church for the space of two Years, and after he is reconcil'd, he shall never rise higher than the rank of Lay-men.

The 5th. deprives a Clergy-man of Ecclesiastical Orders, who being design'd for the Service of some Church in the City or Country, shall not be present at the Sacrifice which is made there every Day.

The 6th. forbids Virgins consecrated to God to have any familiarity with Ecclesiastical Men, who are not of their near Kindred.

The 7th. gives leave to Clergy-men who have Wives that do not behave themselves well, to bind them and shut them up in their Houses, and forbids them to eat with them till they have done Penance.

The 8th. excludes those from Holy Orders who have been in the Wars after they have received Baptism.

The 9th. forbids Virgins and Widows, to pray with Strangers in their Houses, except in the presence of the Bishop, a Priest or a Deacon.

The 10th. declares, That those must not be ordain'd, who have a dependence upon some Family, or who are engag'd in some Farm, unless those upon whom they depend, consent to it.

The 11th. declares, That if a Man in power has robbed a Clergy-man or a poor Monk, and will not appear before the Bishop to give an account of what he has done, he ought to be excommunicated till he restores the Goods which do not belong to him.

The 12th. forbids to receive a Clergy-man from another Bishop, unless he be a Schismatick, and declares all those Excommunicated who separate from Catholicks to join with Schismaticks.

The 13th. Ordains, That those who come to Church and do not receive the Communion shall be admonish'd, that they must either communicate, or be put in the Rank of Penitents, and if they will do neither, they shall be excommunicated.

The 14th. Ordains, That he shall be driven away as a Sacrilegious Person, which having received the Eucharist from the hand of the Bishop, does not eat it.

The 15th. declares, That we must neither eat nor converse with a Lay-man or Clergy-man who is excommunicated.

The 16th. imposes a Penance of 10 Years for Adultery.

The 17th. declares, That he who has a Concubine and a Wife both together, ought to be excom∣municated, but that he ought not to be excommunicated who has only a Concubine; so that it is ne∣cessary for every one that is a Member of the Church, to satisfy himself either with one Wife or one Concubine. This Canon may give some trouble to those, who know not that the Word Concubine, which is at present odious, was formerly taken for a Woman, to whom the Marriage-Promise was given, tho' she was not married with all the Solemnities which the Laws required in Marriage; as St. Austin has explain'd it in the 5th. Chap. of the Book about the Advantages of Marriage.

The 18th. declares, That we ought not to communicate with the Widow of a Bishop, a Priest or a Deacon, if she marries again, and that she ought not to be reconciled until the Point of death.

The 19th. inflicts the same Penalty upon the Daughter of a Bishop, a Priest, or a Deacon, who marries after she has been consecrated to God.

The 20th. is expressed in these Words: Altho it is observed almost every where, not to conse∣crate Chrism without the Bishop, yet because we are informed that in some places the Priests do con∣secrate it, we have ordain'd that for the future, none but the Bishop shall consecrate the Holy Chrism, and that he shall send it through all his Diocess. And to the end that this Canon may be put in execution, every Church shall send to the Bishop a Deacon or Sub-deacon about Easter, that he may fetch Chrism for that day. 'Tis certain that the Bishop can consecrate Chrism at all times, which the Priests cannot do without the Authority and Permission of the Bishop. The Deacons cannot admi∣nister the Holy Chrism, 'tis only lawful for the Priests to do it in the absence of the Bishop, or by his Order, if he be present.

These are the Ecclesiastical Canons which were made at the end of the Fourth Century, and the be∣ginning of the Fifth.

An Abridgment of the Doctrine of the Fourth AGE of the Church.

THO' there was nothing taught in the Fourth Age of the Church, which was not believed in the Three First, yet it must be confess'd that in it the chief Mysteries of Religion were very much clear'd up and explain'd. As to the Divinity and Attributes of God, there was nothing almost added to what was said by the ancient Fathers, and they were even less handled in this Age than in the pre∣ceding. But the Mystery of the Trinity, as we have seen, was the Subject of an infinite number of Books written by the Authors of this Age, and of many Synodical Decisions. The Divinity of the Son of God and the Holy Spirit was established. It was proved, That these Two Persons are of the same Substance with the Father; Essence and Substance was carefully distinguished from the Person; many Arguments were urged whereon to ground this Doctrine; and the Objections which the Here∣ticks propos'd against it, were answer'd.

There was some Difference among the Catholicks about the Word, Hypostasis; Some would have it said, That the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit were Three Hypostases, and others maintain'd that we ought to say, That they were but one and the same Hypostasis; but this seeming Difference consisted only in a Question about a Word, which depended upon the signification of the Word Hypo∣stasis, which one Party took for the Person, and the other for the Nature. All the Fathers of this Age acknowledged, that the Word was a Person distinguished from the Person of the Eternal Father, and that his Generation was Eternal; but they did not think of explaining how this Generation is made; and they confess'd, That it is ineffable and incomprehensible: Neither did they insist upon a multitude of subtle Questions concerning the Mystery of the most Holy Trinity, and they always continued in the Simplicity of the Faith, which they established upon the Authority of Scripture and of Tradition. They taught also that the Word appeared to the Patriarchs, and in this sence they said that he was visible. Tho' they treated not so much in this Age of the Mystery of the Incarnation as in the next, yet it was explained very clearly, and not only the Errors of Arius and Apollinarius were condemned, who denied that Jesus Christ had a Soul or Humane Understanding different from the Di∣vinity; but even the Errors of Nestorius, Eutyches, and all the other Hereticks were rejected before-hand, who either distinguish Two Persons in Jesus Christ, or confound the Two Natures and their Properties. They believ'd the Incarnation to be necessary for the Redemption of Mankind, and ac∣knowledged that none can be sav'd without Faith in Jesus Christ. Some taught also that Jesus Christ preach'd the Gospel to those in Hell, but this Opinion was rejected by many. They affirm'd that there were great numbers of Angels and Devils. They determined nothing about the Day of Judg∣ment, and they did all almost confess, that Men are wholly ignorant of it. They looked upon what the Ancients said concerning the Reign of Jesus Christ upon Earth for the space of a 1000 Years as a mere groundless Imagination. They almost all acknowledged that the Souls which are innocent and purified from their Sins, enjoy Happiness before the Day of Judgment, and that the Souls of the Wicked are condemned to Eternal Fire immediately after their death: Yet they confess'd that af∣ter the Resurrection, their Happiness or Misery should still be encreased. They believed that the Souls of Men were Spiritual and Immortal, but they doubted, Whether they were immediately crea∣ted by God, or produced by the Souls of their Fathers and Mothers. They spoke more of Grace than those who lived in the preceding Ages, and yet they ascribed always very much to Free-Will. Origi∣nal Sin, begun to be better known. They excluded from the Kingdom of Heaven, Children who died without Baptism; but they did not affirm that they should endure the Torments of Fire. They ac∣knowledged the Efficacy and Necessity of Baptism. The Imposition of the Hands of the Bishop, or the Anointing with Holy Chrism, was looked upon as a Sacrament which brought down the Holy Spirit upon the Baptized. They maintain'd against the Novatians, that the Church had power to impose Penance, and to forgive the most Enormous Sins. They taught clearly, That the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist were changed into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. They gave the Name of a Sacrifice to the Celebration of the Eucharist, and performed it with particular Ceremonies. They were persuaded that Men ought to be Ordain'd to make them capable of discharging the Eccle∣siastical Functions. They approved of Marriage, and would have the Persons to be married, contra∣cted in the face of the Church, and in the presence of a Priest who gave a Blessing. They honoured Virginity, and commended those who profess'd it; and look'd upon those as Sacrilegious Persons who violated that Profession. They had much Reverence and Veneration for the Blessed Virgin and for the Saints; they prayed to them, and also honoured their Reliques. They prayed for the Dead. We have often taken notice of their Opinion concerning the Authority of Holy Scripture and Tradition. They taught that there was but one Catholick Church, out of which there was no Salvation, and to whose Authority all Men ought to submit, because it can neither cease to be, nor Err in Matters of Faith.

Wherefore one may say in general, That the Doctrine of the Fourth Age was the Belief of the Church of that Age, and so the Church not being capable of changing her Belief, it necessarily follows, That the Doctrine of that Time, is not at all different from that which the Church teaches still at this Day.

An Abridgment of the Discipline of the Fourth AGE of the Church.

THE Discipline of the Church consists, either in the Government or in the Policy, or in the Ce∣remonies, or in the Practices which concern Manners and Christian Perfection. It cannot be doubted but these Three Points, and especially the Two former, were very much improved in the

Fourth Age of the Church. For before this time, the Church which had been continually toss'd and trou∣bled with Persecutions, could never settle one constant and uniform Form of Government, nor ce∣lebrate the Mysteries with the Pomp and Splendor of Ceremonies: But when once she was perfect∣ly deliver'd from the Yoke of Tyranny, under which she had groaned before, and established by the Authority of a Christian Emperour, she made Rules and Laws for the Government of her self, and join'd to the purity of Faith the Magnificence of Ceremonies. Thus tho' there had been some Rules for the Government of the Churches of the First Ages, which were establish'd by Custom and Tra∣dition, and there were already many Ceremonies practis'd; yet it may be affirm'd that these things were very much improv'd in the Fourth Age of the Church, as will easily appear by comparing what was Ordain'd and Practis'd in that Age, with what was done in the foregoing.

First, as to the Government of the Church. It was in the Fourth Age that the Body of the Churches were perfected, and that certain Rules were establish'd for Ecclesiastical Decisions. The Distinction, Di∣stribution and Subordination of Churches were settled for the most part according to the Form of the Civil Government. The Civil Provinces form'd the Body of an Ecclesiastical Province. The Bishop of the Civil Metropolis was look'd upon as the first Bishop of the Province. Some Rights and Prero∣gatives were assign'd to him, and the Care of overseeing the whole Province was committed to him. In every Province there was held twice a Year Provincial Councils, which the Metropolitan call'd to∣gether, and over which he presided. When a Bishop died, all the Bishops of the Province were called together to ordain a Successor in his room. He was commonly chosen by the Clergy and People of the Vacant Church; The Metropolitan was to be present at this Ordination, and he could not do it unless two Bishops of the Province were with him, and the rest consented to it. As many Civil Pro∣vinces made one District, which was call'd a Diocess, so many Ecclesiastical Provinces made one Ec∣clesiastical Diocess, of which the Bishop of the Principal City was the Head. This Bishop had the Rights, Prerogatives, Privileges of Honour and Jurisdiction over the whole Diocess; he enjoy'd also the Right of Ordaining Metropolitans, which be∣long'd formerly to the Bishops of the Province. The * 1.111 Bishop of the Church of Rome was in possession of the Primacy which he receiv'd from Jesus Christ, as being Successor to St. Peter Prince of the Apostles. This Primacy gave him great Rights and Prerogatives in the whole Church, to maintain the Faith, and cause the Holy Canons to be observ'd. It happened sometimes, but seldom, that he abused his Power and Authority, but when this happened, the Church was satisfied that she could remedy the Abuse. So when Liberius had subscribed to an Arian Creed, and condemned St. A∣thanasius, the other Bishops did not think themselves obliged to follow his Example. The Churches of Alex∣andria, of Antioch, and some others, had also their Pri∣vileges founded upon Ecclesiastical Custom. The Church of Jerusalem had a Degree of Honour, and ac∣quired by little and little some Jurisdiction. Lastly, the Bishop of Constantinople procured to himself the Second Rank of Honour, and in a little time assumed to himself the Jurisdiction over Thrace, Pontus, and les∣ser Asia. The Suburbicary Churches had in a manner no other Metropolitan but the Bishop of Rome. The Churches of Gaul and Spain were governed by Metro∣politans and Provincial Synods. The Churches of A∣frica had no fixed Metropolitan; this Dignity belong'd to the most ancient Bishop of the Province: But the Bishop of Carthage had great Rights and Prerogatives, and even a kind of Jurisdiction over all Africk. As to the Churches without the Roman Empire, they had no certain Form, and they were for the most part go∣vern'd by one Bishop only who had under him many Priests. The Priests took care of the People together with the Bishops: There were also Churches in the Cities and the Country, where they presided over the Assemblies of the People, as Parish-Priests do now. There were also Suffragans who held a middle place between Bishops and Priests: There was no Bishop, Priest, Deacon, or Minister ordain'd, but who was en∣gaged to do his Duty in one certain Church, and this he was obliged to discharge.

As for Ecclesiastical Decisions, a Bishop never judg'd any thing without the Advice of his Clergy. Provincial Councils were commonly held Twice a Year, where the Determinations and Differences of the Bishops of the Province were examined: There all Ecclesiastical Differences were first decided, Matters of Faith only excepted. But those who thought

themselves injured, quickly had recourse to the Bishop who presided over the Diocess, and to his Sy∣nod. The Bishop of Rome pretended to have this Jurisdiction over all the rest, and the Council of Sardica granted him something like it. But the Eastern Churches and many others maintain'd the Authority of their Diocesan or National Synods: All the Bishops thought themselves Judges of Mat∣ters of Faith. When any Question of Faith became a publick Dispute, the Bishops of the Great Sees were consulted, and chiefly the Bishop of Rome, whose Opinion was of great weight, as well upon the account of his Primacy, as because he answer'd in the Name of all the Western Bishops, and was a Wit∣ness of their Doctrine. The General Council of the Eastern and Western Bishops, was looked upon as the Sovereign Judge for deciding all sorts of Ecclesiastical Controversies. Excommunication or Sepa∣ration from the visible Communion of the Church, was the Ecclesiastical Penalty, which was made use of against all those who were convicted of an Error or a Crime; if they repented, they were put under Penance, and then they might be restor'd to the Communion of the Church; but if they were ob∣stinate, they were wholly cast out. The Churches were united together by Letters of Communion. 'Twas forbidden to receive any one into the Church who had been excommunicated, by his own Bi∣shop, without his Consent. And so those who were excommunicated, were separated from the Com∣munion of all the Churches in the World. If any particular Church, any Bishops, or any other Persons separated themselves from the Body of the Church, or continued separated from it, they were look'd upon as Schismaticks. Translations of Bishops were forbidden; they were very rare in the West; but the Ambition of some Bishops made them common in the East. Many Canons were made for hindering Bishops and Clergy-men from going to Court. A Bishop was forbidden to med∣dle with the Affairs of another Diocess, or to Ordain any Persons out of his own. Persons of an unblameable Life were made choice of to enter into Holy Orders; they were depos'd when they com∣mitted any Crime. In many Churches the Age and the necessary Times were prescribed, at which any one could be rais'd to Ecclesiastical Orders. The Bishops, Priests and Deacons, were obliged to Celibacy in the West; which Law was not established in the East. The Church begun then to have great Riches, which came to her from the Liberality of the Emperours and others of the Faithful. The Sacraments were administred gratis, and it was forbidden to take or give any thing for a Spi∣ritual Benefit. Many very useful Canons were made concerning the Life and Manners of Ecclesia∣sticks. In a word, Nothing can be Greater or Wiser than the Laws which were made at this time, concerning the Government of the Church; but it must be confess'd, That they were not always very exactly observed, and that the Interests and Passions of Men, the Ambition of Bishops, and the Will of Princes, caused them often to be violated, contrary to the Intention of the Church, which used all her Endeavours to maintain them.

When Christians began in the Reign of Constantine to perform Divine Service publickly with Pomp and Solemnity, there is no doubt but the Ancient Ecclesiastical Ceremonies were then perfe∣cted, and that new ones were added to render the Celebration of the Holy Mysteries more venerable to the People. Some of the chief of them were these.

Baptism was administred to Infants and Adult Persons with many Ceremonies. They were dipped Three times into the Water. Exorcisms and Anointings were in use. Milk and Honey were given to the Catechumens. The Solemn Times for Administring Baptism were Easter and Whit-sunday, and also Epiphany in some Churches. The Adult were prepared for Receiving this Sa∣crament a considerable time before, and there were many Degrees of Catechumens, as we have already observed. After Baptism the Bishop conferred the Fulness of the Holy Spirit, by Impo∣sition of Hands in the Latin Church, and by Unction in the Greek. The Times and Degrees of Publick Penance for Crimes committed after Baptism were settled by an infinite number of Canons, yet it was always left to the Discretion of the Bishop, to lessen or encrease them. Publick Penance was imposed for all the great Crimes, which the Penitents were either convicted of, or confess'd themselves to be guilty of. Absolution was not commonly refused for any Crime; but Penance was never granted twice. The Holy Sacrifice of the Eucharist was celebrated with Ceremonies. The Eucharist was commonly given to the Laity in both Kinds; but upon certain occasions they gave it in one kind only. The Bread which was consecrated was ordinary Bread, broken into ma∣ny pieces. The Faithful were often present at the Holy Sacrifice; Catechumens and Penitents were debarred from it; the Eucharist was received in the Act of Adoration. The Laity receiv'd also the Bread of the Eucharist into their hands, but the custom of carrying it to their Houses was very rare, and it was commonly spent all in the Church, while they were fasting. The Love-Feasts or Feasts of Charity, were removed in most Churches; almost all those that were present at the Sacrifice received the Communion; and so Christians receiv'd the Body of Jesus Christ very often, and yet were persua∣ded, that they ought to be Holy and Innocent to receive it worthily. Before the Communion-Of∣fice began there were some Prayers which were made for Catechumens and Penitents. The Holy Scripture was read in the Assemblies of Christians, and the Bishop or one of the Priests preached the Word of God. These Assemblies were held in Churches consecrated to God, and built magnifi∣cently; they were made very splendid, and Divine Offices were celebrated there with much Pomp and Splendor. Singing of Psalms was also us'd; Wax-Chandles were lighted chiefly during the No∣cturnal Offices. The Dead were buried with much Ceremony and Pomp, the Great Festivals were celebrated with much Solemnity. Processions began to be introduced. Prayer for the Dead was a common Practice in the Church; they were commemorated at the celebration of the Eucharist. The Invocation of Saints and Martyrs, and the Celebration of their Festivals were common in all the Churches; the use of Crosses was frequent; the Sign of the Cross was made very often; there were Images in many Churches. A Blessing was given for Marriage; but the Church never gave it

for Second Marriages, and they even put Bigamists under Penance for some time. Marriages con∣tracted between Persons who could not lawfully Marry according to the Civil Laws, were looked upon as null. Divorce for Adultery was permitted in some Churches. Orders were conferred by Imposi∣tion of Hands. Bishops had the sole Power of Ordaining Bishops, Priests and Deacons, and of Con∣firming. Solemn Baptism also, and the Absolution of Publick Penitents was reserv'd to them. The number of lesser Orders was not fixed; there were more or fewer of them in different Churches. There were Deaconnesses in almost all Churches. The Mysteries were carefully conceal'd from those who were not yet baptized. The Bishops, Priests, Deacons, and the Laity had their Places in the Churches. In short, Divine Service was performed with much Decency, Modesty, Gravity and Pomp.

Fasting is one of the chief external Practices which concern Manners: The Christians of the Fourth Age were very Religious in observing it. Lent was established in all Churches, tho' it was longer or shorter in different Places. The Fasts of Wednesday and Friday, (or Saturday in the Church of Rome) were also Religiously observed. During the time of Fasting, they waited till Night in Lent before they eat any thing, and till three a Clock in the Afternoon in other Fasts; and all this time they com∣monly abstained from Meat and Wine in almost all Churches. The Monastick State was established in this Age, and became very common in a little time. There quickly appear'd a great number of Monasteries full of an infinite number of Monks, who retir'd from the World, observ'd Celibacy, liv'd in Obedience, kept excessive Fasts, and perform'd very great Austerities. Many Virgins were also consecrated to God, made a Vow of Virginity, and liv'd in common under the Government of an Abbess. The Monks and Nuns were both under the Jurisdiction of their Bishops. There were ve∣ry few Monks who were Priests; some were taken out of Monasteries to be made Bishops. There were also some Hermits who dwelt alone in the Desarts. The Christians were constantly at Pray∣ers and gave great Alms to the Poor, assisted the Sick, visited Prisoners, and did several other Works of Charity. They sometimes undertook Pilgrimages to visit the Holy Places; but tho' the Holy Fathers approved the Devotion, yet they feared the Accidents which might happen up∣on it, and were not of Opinion, that these kind of Journies should be undertaken rashly and lightly. They did not tolerate superstitious Practices, nor any new Devotions founded upon the Imaginations of private Persons, but they recommended the Practice of Evangelical Counsels, and exhorted all Christians to go on to that Perfection which is described in many Places of the Gospel.

These are some part of the Points of Discipline of the Fourth Age of the Church: I shall not stay now to observe many others, nor to prove these by Authentical Testimonies; because my Design is not to make a Dissertation upon this Subject, which would be longer than all this Volume, but only to give a slight Idea of the Discipline of that Time. Neither shall I undertake to Col∣lect or Abridge what the Writers of this Age have said of Morality, which would be an infinite Work; and the Reader ought to be satisfied with the Extracts that are made in the body of our Book taken from the finest Passages of the Authors here mentioned.

The End of the Second Volume.

Notes

• * 1.1

  The Council of Sinuessa, 303.
• * 1.2

  Of Cirtha; 305.
• * 1.3

  The Councils.
• * 1.4

  Of Alex∣andria, 306.
• a 1.5

  The place.] The Name of this Council is very va∣rious; Some call it Libertinum, others Elibertinum, others Heberitanum, and some Eliberinum; but the more com∣mon Name is Eliberitanum, or Illiberitanum. The anci∣ent Geographers mention only Two Cities call'd by this Name, whereof one was in Gallia Narbonensis, and the other in Boetica. 'Tis thought that the first is Perpignan, and the other in all probability is the City of Granada. The First was destroy'd in the time of Pliny and Mela, and 'tis no wise probable that the Bishops of Spain should come so far to hold a Council. Wherefore it is much more probable that this Council was held at the Spanish Elvira i. e. Granada.
• b 1.6

  The time.] Those who said that this Council was held after the Year 400, affirm'd what is manifestly false, since at that time the enjoining Penance for those who had sacrific'd to Idols, was not debated: The same Reason proves that there is no probability that it was assembled after the Council of Nice. It seems to have been called before that of Arles; but I do not be∣lieve that it was called before the Persecution of Dio∣clesian. There is more probability, that it was assem∣bled when the Persecution ended in the West, and when Dioclesian had abdicated the Empire in the Year 304.
• * 1.7

  Of Eliberis or Elvira, 305.
• * 1.8

  [This Canon is an authentick Evi∣dence of the Marrying of the Clergy of the Church of Spain at this time.]
• * 1.9

  [By infamous Crimes here is meant abusing their Bodies with Mankind.]
• * 1.10

  Of Car∣thage, 311.
• * 1.11

  Of Rome, 313.
• * 1.12

  Of Arles, 314.
• a 1.13

  Call'd.] 'Tis certain that the Emperour call'd this Synod. We have in Euseb. B. X. of his Hist. Ch. 5. the Letter which he wrote to Chrestus Bishop of Syracuse, wherein he commands him to be present at this Coun∣cil of Arles; he wrote of it likewise to all the other Bi∣shops. Some have said that the Donatists appeal'd to a Council after the Decision of Rome, but St. Austin who had studied this History exactly, says in an infinite number of places, that they complained only of the Judgment given at Rome, but did not Appeal till after the Decision of the Council of Arles.
• b 1.14

  Compos'd of 33 Western Bishops.] Baronius thought that this Council consisted of 200 Bishops, which he grounded upon a Passage of St. Austin in his Book against the Epi∣stle of Parmenianus Ch. 5. but he misunderstood that Passage, for there he does not speak of the Council of Arles, but of the Council of Rome, which consisted on∣ly of 19 Bishops, and not of 200, as they are reckon'd in the Text of St. Austin according to the common Edi∣tions; but this place has been restored in the last Edi∣tion by a Manuscript of the Vatican Library, and instead of reading as it was, Ut ducentos Judices apud quos victi sunt, victis litigatoribus credant esse postponendos, it is now thus restored, ut contra Judices, apud quos victi sunt, victis litigatoribus credant, &c. There are but 33 Names at the head of the Council's Letter; but of these 33 there are 4 Priests, and one Deacon, and six Exorcists. They endeavour to prove that there was a greater number of Bishops at this Council, because Constantine in his Letter to Chrestus, and the second Council of Arles testify, That there were Bishops in it from all Parts of the World: But these 19 Bishops are found to be from all Parts of the West, and so it is not necessary to admit a greater number of them, to verify what is said by Constantine and the Fa∣thers of the second Council of Arles. Ado says, that 600 Bishops were present at this Council; but this is no-wise probable.
• c 1.15

  Marinus Bishop of Arles presided there, &c.] His Name is at the head of the Bishops, named at the beginning of the Epistle to St. Sylvester, before those of the Pope's Legates.
• d 1.16

  That the Emperour was not there.] Some Authors have said that he was, but they are mistaken; for it appears by the Letter of Constantine written after the Synod, that he was not, and the Donatists would not have appeal'd to his Judgment, if he had been present at the Sentence given by the Synod and approved it.
• * 1.17

  Of Ancyra and Neo-Caesarea, 314.
• * 1.18

  Of the First of A∣lexandria, against A∣rius, 322.
• * 1.19

  Of Bithynia, for Arius, 323.
• * 1.20

  Of the Se∣cond of A∣lexandria, against A∣rius, 324.
• * 1.21

  Of Nice, 325.
• a 1.22

  By Order of the Emperour, &c.] Eusebius B. III. of the Life of Constantine Ch. 6. says, That the Council of Nice was assembled by Order of the Emperour; and the Bishops of this Council in their Letter to the Egyp∣tians, say, That they were Summon'd to meet by the Emperour's Letters. Constantine says the same thing, all the Ancients are agreed in it.
• b 1.23

  In the Year 325.] Socrates assures us, That this Council was Assembled at this time, and it could not be assembled sooner nor later.
• c 1.24

  In the Second Year of the Reign of Constantine.] It begun in the Month of August, and the Council was held in the Month of July.
• d 1.25

  Those who were present at it do not precisely determine this number.] Eusebius B. III. of the Life of Constantine, says, that there were at the Council of Nice more than 250 Bishops. Eustathius says, that there were to the number of 270, or thereabouts. St. Athanasius in his Book of the Decrees of the Council of Nice, and in his Epistle to the Monks, says, that they were about 300; yet the same St. Athanasius in his Letter to the Africans, St. Hilary in his Book of Synods, Ruffinus, St. Ambrose, St. Epiphanius, &c. call the Council of Nice, a Council of 318 Bishops. Socrates, Sozomen and Marius Mercator, do not reckon precisely the same number, but they do not much differ from it.
• e 1.26

  'Tis not certainly known who presided in this Council, but 'tis probable that it was Hosius.] St. Athanasius in his second Apology, calls Hosius the Father and President of all the Councils. The Name of this Bishop is the First in all the Subscriptions. Alexander was much esteemed as appears by the Letter of the Council. Eustathius of Antioch is call'd the chief Bishop of the Council by Pro∣clus and by Facundus. But it is more probable that Ho∣sius presided there in his own Name and not in the Pope's: For he no where assumes the Title of Legate of the Holy See, and none of the Ancients say, that he presided in this Council in the Pope's Name. Gelasius Cyzicenus who first affirm'd it, says it without any Proof or Authority.
• f 1.27

  The Assembled was held in his Palace.] Euse∣bius says so expresly B. III. of the Life of Constan∣tine Ch. 10. Socrates B. I. of his History Ch. 18. and Theodoret B. I. Ch. 7. following herein the Testimony of Eusebius. 'Tis true that this place is called by Eusebius himself in Ch. 7. a Sacred Place, but it is upon the account of the Assembly of the Bishops who were then in it.
• g 1.28

  All the Bishops except Secundus and Theonas Signed this Creed.] This appears by the Letter of the Synod, and by the Testimony of Theodoret B. I. Ch. 7. and of Philostorgius. Some say, that Eusebius and Theognis would not Sign the Condemnation of Arius, and that they were condemned in the Council. This is not true, and if they did alledge this distinction, it was after the Coun∣cil of Nice and not in the Council.
• h 1.29

  Arius, Secundus and Theonas were condemned, &c.] This appears by the Letter of the Council, tho' St. Jerom affirms the contrary concerning Arius. St. Athanasius, who is more to be credited than St. Jerom in this mat∣ter, says several times that Arius was condemned in the Council of Nice. Socrates, Sozomen and Theodoret do also testify the same thing.
• i 1.30

  Which is a kind of Re-ordination.] It is commonly thought that this Imposition of Hands, which the Fa∣thers of this Council call, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, was only a Ceremony; but Valesius has very well proved that it was a new Ordination; and this is the thing which the Word does properly signify.
• k 1.31

  There were never more Genuine.] Theodoret and Ruf∣finus mention only these 20 Canons; tho' the latter rec∣kons 22 of them, yet he own'd no more, because he divided 2 of them. The Bishops of Africa found but 20 of them, after they had enquired very diligently all over the East for all the Canons made by the Council of Nice. Dionysius Exiguus and all the other Collectors of Canons, have acknowledg'd but those 20. The Ara∣bick Canons which Echellensis publish'd under the Name of the Council of Nice, cannot belong to this Council.
• * 1.32

  [Only so far, as it may by a Nega∣tive Argument be hence very strong∣ly concluded, That the See of Rome then claimed none but Privileges common to it and other Metropo∣litical Sees.]
• * 1.33

  [This would be an excellent De∣fence for the Discipline of the Church of Rome in this particular, if there were some Ages wherein Celibacy could more easily be preserved than it can in others; or if the Constitu∣tion of Mankind varied according to the Temporal Interests of any one private Church.]
• l 1.34

  I do not think that there ever were any other Acts of this Council.] If there had been any, St. Athanasius would have sent them to his Friend, who desired of him the History of the Council of Nice, or he would have bid him read them: But he never did it, and he gives him an account of his own of what was done in the Council. There is a Passage cited out of St. Athanasius, to prove that he acknowledged other Acts of this Coun∣cil. 'Tis taken out of the Book of Synods, where mention is made in the Version of it, of the Acts of the Council of Nice. But in the Greek it is only 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which has been written by the Fathers; and 'tis plain that he speaks in this place of the Confession of Faith. And that which farther shews that there never were any Acts of the Council of Nice, is, that the Fa∣thers of the Council themselves in their Letter to the Egyptians, say, that their Arch-Bishop Alexander, should inform them particularly of all that pass'd in the Synod. In a word, neither Ruffinus, nor Socrates, nor Theodoret, nor any ancient Historian, had ever seen or known these Acts. St. Jerom says, that he had read the Acts of the Council of Nice, but he means only the Creed, the Canons, and the Subscriptions. The Acts which Gela∣sius Cyzicenus attributes to Dalmatius were made since the Council, and taken out of Eusebius, Theodoret, Socra∣tes, Sozomen, and other Historians.
• m 1.35

  The Letter of the Council to St. Sylvester is suppositi∣tious.] The Stile of it is barbarous and intricate. It be∣gins with this Period which has no sence: Gloriam cor∣roborata de divinis mysteriis. Ecclesiasticae utilitatis quae ad robur pertinent Ecclesiae Catholicae & Apostolicae ad sedem tuam Romanam explanata, & de Graeco redacta scri∣bere confitemur; and afterwards, Nunc itaque ad vestrae se∣dis argumentum accurrimus roborari, and so on. It is all made up of such kind of stuff. The date is ridiculous, wherein the Consuls are called Sovereigns, an Epithete never given to them, and the Letter is dated Five or Six Days after the Opening of the Council.
• n 1.36

  The Answer of St. Sylvester.] The Stile is like that of the former Letter; it supposes that St. Sylvester ad∣ded something to the Council of Nice, it mentions the Cycle of Victorinus who lived long after St. Sylvester. The Date of the Consuls also is false.
• o 1.37

  The Canons of this Council are also forged.] The Inscription of this Council discovers its Imposture: There 'tis said, that the Council was held in the pre∣sence of Constantine in the City of Rome; but Constan∣tine came not to Rome that Year. 'Tis also observed, that it consisted of 275 Bishops: Who can think that Sylvester assembled so numerous a Synod, and yet that it should be unknown to all Antiquity? Why is it not mentioned in some ancient Author? The First Canon concerning the time of Easter is Non-sense. The Se∣cond is yet more unintelligible: These are the Words of it; Ut unusquisque Episcopus rediens ad Parochiam suam, compaginem salutationis plebi tuae innotescat. Thus the Stile of it is as barbarous as is possible. The Third Canon forbids the Clergy to appear before Secular Judges for any Cause whatsoever. This is contrary to the Disci∣pline of that time. The Fourth declares, That those who would enter into Holy Orders, should pass through all the Degrees, and be One Year Porters, Twenty Years Readers, Ten Years Exorcists, Five Years Acolyths, as many Years Sub-deacons, and yet as many Deacons, and afterwards Priests, and that they cannot be Bishops till the end of 6 Years more; from whence it would fol∣low that none could be Ordain'd Bishops till they were more than 60 Years old; which is ridiculous and con∣trary to the Practice of the Ancient Church.
• * 1.38

  Of Antioch, against Eu∣stathius, 330.
• * 1.39

  Of Caesarea, 334.
• * 1.40

  Of Tyre, a∣gainst St. Athana∣sius, 335.
• * 1.41

  Of Jerusa∣lem, 335.
• * 1.42

  Of Constan∣tinople, a∣gainst Marcellus of Ancyra, 336.
• * 1.43

  Of Constan∣tinople, a∣gainst Paul Bishop of that City, 338.
• * 1.44

  Of Alexan∣dria, in be∣half of St. Athanasius, 340.
• * 1.45

  Of Rome, in behalf of St. A∣thanasius, 341.
• * 1.46

  Of Anti∣och. 341. 342.
• * 1.47

  Of Antioch, 345.
• * 1.48

  Of Milan, 346.
• * 1.49

  Of Cologne, against Euphratas, 346.
• * 1.50

  Of Sardica, 347.
• a 1.51

  The Emperours Constantius and Constans called a Council at Sardica in the Year 347.] Socrates B. II. Ch. 20. and Sozomen B. III. Ch. 11. testify that it was called in this Year. St. Athanasius confirms this Epo∣cha, because he says, that it was held a Year after the Council of Milan. It appears by the express Testi∣monies of St. Athanasius, that this Council was called by the Emperours. Hosius says the same thing in his Letter to the Emperour, and the Historians, Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret and Sulpitius Severus follow this Opinion. Socrates indeed says, the Bishops of the East complain'd that Julius had allowed too little time for coming to the Synod; but he confounds what they say about the Council of Rome, with what concerns the Council of Sardica.
• b 1.52

  Thither came 100 Bishops from the West, and 73 from the East.] St. Athanasius in his Letter to those that lead a Monastick Life, says, that this Council consisted of 170 Bishops or thereabouts. Now it appears by the Subscriptions of the Letter of the Bishops of the East, that these Bishops from the East were 73. St. Atha∣nasius indeed says, That the Letter of the Council of Sardica containing his Absolution was sign'd by 300 Bishops, but this is to be understood not only of those who were present at the Council, but also of those who subscribed after the Council was over, to its Sy∣nodical Letter.
• c 1.53

  Of whom Hosius was Head and President.] The Name of this Bishop is the First in the Subscriptions which are in St. Athanasius, who says, That he was the Head and President of all the Councils where he was present. Theodoret says expresly, That he presided in this Council B. II. Ch. 15. of his History, as well as Sozomen B. III. Ch. 11. and the Council of Chalcedon in their Discourse to Marcianus, Tome IV. of the Councils, p. 825. Petrus de Marca has affirm'd, That he presi∣ded in this Council in the Name of the Pope but his Opinion is not founded on any solid Argument. The Pope's Legates sign'd after him, and declared, That they only represented his Person: Julius Romae per Archidamum & Philoxenum Presbyteros.
• * 1.54

  Of the First of Sirmium, 349.
• * 1.55

  Of the Se∣cond of Sirmium, 351.
• * 1.56

  Of Arles, 353.
• * 1.57

  Of Milan, 355.
• * 1.58

  Of Biterrae, or Beziers. 356.
• * 1.59

  Of the Third of Sirmium, 357.
• * 1.60

  Of Antioch, 358.
• * 1.61

  Of Ancyra, 358.
• * 1.62

  Of the Fourth of Sirmium, 358.
• * 1.63

  Of the Fifth of Sirmium, 359.
• * 1.64

  Of Arimi∣num, 359.
• * 1.65

  Of Seleu∣cia, 359.
• * 1.66

  [That made in Nicé a City of Thrace.]
• * 1.67

  Of Consta¦tinople, 360.
• * 1.68

  Of Meli∣tine, 357.
• * 1.69

  Of Antioch, 361.
• * 1.70

  Of Alex∣andria, 362.
• * 1.71

  Of Paris, 362.
• * 1.72

  Of Italy, 362.
• * 1.73

  Of the E∣gyptian Bi∣shops held at Antioch, 363.
• * 1.74

  Of Antioch, under Me∣letius, 363.
• * 1.75

  Of Lamp∣sacus. 365.
• * 1.76

  Of Singe∣dunum, of Arian Bi∣shops, 366.
• * 1.77

  The Sy∣nods of 365. & 366.
• * 1.78

  Of Tyana, 368.
• * 1.79

  Of Gangra, 370.
• * 1.80

  Of Laodi∣cea, be∣tween 360 & 370.
• * 1.81

  Of Rome, under Da∣masus, 370.
• * 1.82

  Of Rome, against Ursicinus, 372.
• * 1.83

  Of Valence, 374.
• * 1.84

  Of Antio 378.
• * 1.85

  Of the First of Constanti¦nople, 381.
• * 1.86

  Of the Second of Constanti∣nople, 382.
• * 1.87

  Of the Third of Constanti∣nople, 383.
• * 1.88

  Of Aquileia, 381.
• * 1.89

  Of Sara∣gosa, 381.
• * 1.90

  Of Sida in Pamphylia, 383.
• * 1.91

  Of Bour∣deaux, 383.
• * 1.92

  Of Capud 390.
• * 1.93

  Of Rome, and of Mi∣lan, against Jovinian, 390.
• * 1.94

  Of Sanga∣rus, 390.
• * 1.95

  Of the First of Carthage, 348.
• * 1.96

  Of the Se∣cond of Carthage, 390.
• * 1.97

  Of Cabar¦sussa and Bagaïs, 393, 394.
• * 1.98

  Of Hippo, 393.
• * 1.99

  Of Car∣thage, 394.
• * 1.100

  Of Car∣thage, 397.
• * 1.101

  Of Car∣thage, 398.
• * 1.102

  Of Car∣thage, 399.
• * 1.103

  Of the Fifth of Carthage, 401.
• * 1.104

  Of Con•…•… tinople, 394
• * 1.105

  Of Alex•…•… dria, 399.
• * 1.106

  Of Cypri 399.
• * 1.107

  Of Turin 400▪
• * 1.108

  Of Toledo▪ 400.
• * 1.109

  [Continence in these Canons is to be understood of abstaining from the Rites of Marriage.]
• * 1.110

  [i. e. The Elements of the Eucharist.]
• * 1.111

  [Whoever has attentively read the foregoing accountof the Controversies by which the Church was divided in this Age, and of the Synods that were convened to determine them, can make a very true Judgment whether this is not said (to save himself) by a Man, who having in his other Writings appeared so zealously for the Privileges of the Gallican Church against the Pretensions of the Court of Rome, thought himself obliged to insert this Period for the satisfaction of his scrupulous Brethren. These Abridgments are designed to be heaps of Conclusions from Pre∣mises already laid down in the precedent Work, so that tho' this Proposition were true in it self, it were here impertinent, because it can∣not be collected from what went before, which makes me think that this Period belongs more to the Licensers than the Author. I need only appeal to this very History, from which Two Con∣clusions may be certainly drawn. First, That the Orthodox Bishops who were persecuted by Con∣stantius and Valens in the East, were glad to fly to Rome for shelter, and would, as all Men naturally do, make the most of the Assistance they found, that possibly they could. Secondly, That every Metropolitical See was equally concerned to preserve its own Rights, and the rest of the Church thought it only a Matter of Discipline, instituted for the sake of Order and Decency, that one Church had the Rights of a Metro∣polis, rather than another. This last, Mr. Du Pin takes pains himself to prove, from whence at least this must be plain, That he must believe that in the Fourth Age of the Church, all the Supremacy that was allow'd to the Church of Rome was only Titular out of its own Jurisdi∣ction; and then the Primacy granted to St. Peter could not have then been understood to belong to any of his Successors, (even tho' we should allow them to have thought that St. Peter had a real Authority) since the rest of the Church plainly acted without any regard to it, and te∣stified no remorse for it afterwards.]